Employment Appeal Tribunal Rules in Favour of Claimant After Name Change Dispute
Claimant's name change led to ET1 rejection; EAT finds error of law, allowing claim to proceed.
• public
Employment Appeal Tribunal Upholds Claimant's Rights After Name Change
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has ruled in favour of a claimant, Mr Isaac Bickley, in a case against John Lewis Plc. The initial rejection of his employment tribunal claim, based on a discrepancy between his name on the Early Conciliation (EC) certificate and the ET1 claim form, has been overturned.
The Employment Tribunal had initially rejected Mr Bickley's claim under Rule 12(1)(e) of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure Regulations 2013. This rule requires the claimant's name on the claim form to match that on the EC certificate. Mr Bickley had legally changed his name by deed poll between obtaining his EC certificate and submitting his ET1 form, leading to the different names appearing on the documents. This change in name was due to his gender reassignment.
However, the EAT, presided over by Deputy High Court Judge Marcus Pilgerstorfer KC, found that the Employment Tribunal had erred in law. The Tribunal failed to consider whether Mr Bickley had made an error "in relation to a name" and also neglected to assess if Rule 6 of the 2013 Rules, which allows for flexibility in procedural non-compliance, could have been applied. The EAT highlighted that employment tribunals should strive to avoid placing "artificial barriers in the way of genuine claims."
In its decision, the EAT stated that the only conclusion open to the Tribunal was to accept the claim. The appeal was allowed by consent, with the EAT substituting the original decision to reject the claim with a decision to accept it as at the date of its initial presentation, 9 July 2024. This ensures that Mr Bickley's case can now proceed to be managed and heard, addressing the important issues of discrimination based on gender reassignment.
Read the entire judgment here: Mr Isaac Bickley v John Lewis Plc, EAT 59
