The Claimant was dismissed by the Respondent and sought to bring a number of claims against him including unfair dismissal. She submitted an ET1 on which she inserted the wrong ACAS ECC number. She rectified the number immediately on the point being drawn to her attention but after the primary limitation period had expired. The claim was accepted but deemed to have been presented on the date the defect was rectified. The ET extended time on the basis that it had not been reasonably practicable to present the complaint before the expiry of the primary limitation period. The Respondent appealed on the basis that the ET had failed to consider whether the original error in inserting the wrong number on the form was reasonable.

The EAT dismissed the appeal. The real issue in this case was not whether the original mistake was reasonable but whether the mistaken belief that a form had been correctly presented and it was therefore unnecessary to do anything more was reasonable having regard to all facts and circumstances. The nature of the original mistake is relevant to this assessment but not determinative. In this case the ET had in mind and took into account the nature of the original mistake when they addressed the real issue and decided to extend time. That decision was certainly not a perverse one.