The Claimant presented a claim in the ET that she had been forced to leave her job because she was pregnant, and a copy of the claim form was sent to a trading name of the Respondent ("JSH"). No response was received from the Respondent, and the ET said that, since there had been non-compliance with Rule 15, the claim form would be resent to the Respondent's company ("JSKL"). The Claimant appealed, contending that the ET did not consider her application under Rule 21 for judgment in default, and that the ET was wrong to make the order it did as to sending the claim form to the address of JSKL, thereby allowing further time for a response to be submitted.

The EAT held that the decision that Rule 15 was not complied with when documents were sent to JSH must be set aside; and, on the evidence available, the only rational conclusion was that Rule 15 was complied with when the relevant documents were sent to the Respondent's place of business using a trading name of the Respondent. Accordingly, the claim would be remitted to a fresh ET for consideration of the Claimant's application under Rule 21 and any application that might be made in future by the Respondent under Rule 20.