The claimant, a litigant in person, had been dismissed by the respondent and instigated claims for discrimination. However the name of the respondent in her early conciliation did not exactly match that on her ET1 so a legal officer at Watford ET rejected the claim. The claimant then missed the deadline for reconsideration so appealed to the EAT.
In this ex tempore judgment Choudhury held that the Tribunal had erred in rejecting the claim,

"in that having found that there was an error: (i) it failed to apply rule 12(2A) of the Tribunal Rules in that it failed to consider whether it would be in the interests of justice to reject the claim; and (ii) it was not in the interests of justice to reject the claim. The EC certificate clearly names the correct party (Coach) as the prospective respondent. Coach was clearly at that stage the intended target of the claimant’s claims. Whilst the claim form names an individual HR Manager as the person against whom the claim is brought, there are various indications in the details of claim that the intended target of the complaint is, and always has been, the claimant’s employer, Coach. In analysing the claim form and details of claim, the EAT has borne in mind that the claimant was unrepresented and that one should avoid excessive formality in proceedings."