The Claimant made claims against 2 Respondents, ADR and the Co-op (who both denied being the Claimant's employer). The ACAS EC procedure says that it is necessary to submit separate forms in respect of separate Respondents - the Claimant completed one form and named the Respondent as an amalgamation of the names of the 2 Respondents. The form was accepted by ACAS and an early conciliation certificate was issued, but the ET ruled that the claimant had not satisfied the provisions of s18A and therefore ACAS had issued an unlawful certificate. The Claimant did not, therefore, have standing to bring the instant claim against either Respondent. On that basis, the claim was struck out against both Respondents. The Claimant appealed.

The EAT allowed the appeal. In this case the EJ had looked behind the certificate and found that the Claimant failed to provide the prescribed information in the prescribed manner on the notification form. That was an error of law. Section 18A requires the focus to be on the early conciliation certificate. Also, there is no requirement in the Early Conciliation Rules of Procedure that the early conciliation certificate should relate only to one Respondent and the ACAS certificate in this case was a valid certificate for the purposes of section 18A(8) even though it named two parties.