The Claimant erroneously notified ACAS under the EC procedure the name of the Respondent, which was an individual (the address was correct). However, on his ET1 he correctly named the Respondent as an organisation, not an individual. His claim was rejected on the basis that the difference between the name in the early conciliation certificate and the ET1 was not a "minor error". The Claimant appealed.

The EAT dismissed the appeal concluding that it was not appropriate to put any gloss on the simple and straightforward language of Rule 12(2A) and there was no error of law in the Employment Judge's conclusion.

_____________

Appeal No. UKEAT/0317/16/RN

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL

FLEETBANK HOUSE, 2-6 SALISBURY SQUARE, LONDON EC4Y 8AE

At the Tribunal

On 9 & 22 May 2017

Before

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE SOOLE

(SITTING ALONE)

GINY (APPELLANT)

**

**

SNA TRANSPORT LIMITED (RESPONDENT)

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

**APPEARANCES**

For the Appellant
MR ANDREW WATSON (of Counsel)
Instructed by:
DPH Legal
Davidson House
Forbury Square
Reading
Berkshire
RG1 3EU

For the Respondent
MR RICHARD REES (Representative)
Peninsula Business Services Ltd
The Peninsula
Victoria Place
Manchester
M4 4FB

**SUMMARY**

JURISDICTIONAL POINTS

The Claimant notified ACAS under the early conciliation procedure, erroneously identifying an individual (Mr S N Ahmed) as his employer and "prospective respondent" (rather than Mr Ahmed's company), but giving the correct address. ACAS duly issued an early conciliation certificate with that information. Having taken legal advice the Claimant issued his ET1 claim form with the Respondent correctly named. The Employment Judge rejected the claim under Rule 12(2A) on the basis that the difference between the name in the early conciliation certificate and the ET1 was not a "minor error". The Claimant contended that the decision was wrong in law; and that on a purposive interpretation of Rule 12(2A) the question was whether the information given to ACAS was sufficient for it to achieve contact with the true Respondent, which was satisfied in this case. The Respondent contended that the difference between the name of a natural person and a legal person could never be a "minor error". Rejecting both contentions, the Employment Appeal Tribunal concluded that it was not appropriate to put any gloss on the simple and straightforward language of the Rule; and that there was no error of law in the Employment Judge's conclusion.

**THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE SOOLE****Introduction**

1. This is the appeal of the Claimant, Mr Giny, against the Decision of Employment Judge Martin dated 15 July 2016 whereby his claim against the Respondent company, SNA Transport Ltd, was rejected on the procedural basis that the difference between the name of the prospective Respondent on the early conciliation ("EC") certificate ("Mr Shakoor Nadeem Ahmed") and the name of the Respondent company on the claim form was not a "minor error" within the meaning of Rule 12(2A) of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 ("the ET Rules"). The ground of appeal is that this conclusion was wrong in law.

**Background**

1. Mr Giny was employed by the Respondent company as an Office Manager from February 2010 until his resignation on 15 March 2016. The company provided transport services to children with special educational needs for a number of local authorities under central contract. The company's address was 612 Kingston Road, Raynes Park, London SW20 8DN. At all material times its sole Director was Mr Ahmed.

1. By his claim form received 7 July 2016 and prepared by solicitors on his behalf, the Claimant alleged that his resignation amounted to a constructive dismissal in consequence of alleged fundamental breaches of contract by "the Respondent's directors". There follow lengthy Particulars of alleged bullying and degrading behaviour by Mr Ahmed, his wife and son. He claims unfair dismissal and other claims and remedies. His allegations and claims are denied.

1. The Particulars of Claim state that the Claimant:

"3. … was not provided with a written statement of terms and / or contract but was expected to carry out the administration of the Respondent's contracts of service, including the tender for such contracts and any quasi hearings on breaches of the same, in addition to undertaking some driving duties."

1. Before issuing his claim form the Claimant on 9 June 2016, then acting in person, purported to provide ACAS with the information required by section 18A of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 ("ETA") and the Early Conciliation Rules of Procedure 2014 ("the EC Rules"), namely "the prospective respondent's name and address" (Rules 2(2)(b) and 3(1)(b)). It appears that he took the option of providing the information by telephone (Rule 3(1)(b)). In doing so the Claimant erroneously gave the prospective Respondent's name as Mr Shakoor Nadeem Ahmed but gave the correct address.

1. On the same date, 9 June 2016, ACAS issued the EC certificate. In accordance with Rule 8(b) of the EC Rules this duly contained the name and address of the prospective Respondent as provided by the Claimant. The material parts stated:

**"Acas EC Reference Number R150777/16/46
**Prospective Claimant
**Islam Ullah Giny
**[His Address]

**Prospective Respondent
**Mr Shakoor Nadeem Ahmed
**612 Kingston Road
**Raynes Park
**London
**SW20 8DN

Date of receipt by Acas of the EC notification 09 Jun 2016

Date of issue by Acas of this Certificate 09 Jun 2016

Method of issue - Email

This Certificate is to confirm that the prospective claimant has complied with the requirement under ETA 1996 s18A to contact Acas before instituting proceedings in the Employment Tribunal."

1. As I have indicated, the subsequent ET1 claim form was prepared by solicitors on his behalf and correctly identified the Respondent employer as SNA Transport Ltd.

1. By a decision letter dated 15 July 2016, headed in capitals "Rejection of Claim" and underneath that "Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013", the Employment Tribunal notified the Claimant as follows:

"Your claim form has been referred to Employment Judge Martin who has decided to reject it because your complaint is one which the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to consider. I am therefore returning your claim form to you.

Reason: the Respondent's name in the ACAS Early Conciliation certificate differs to the name in [the] Claim form."

1. By a letter to the Employment Tribunal dated 18 July 2016 his solicitors asked for the decision to be reconsidered on the basis that it was "Not in the interests of Justice to reject the claim". The letter emphasised that the Claimant had not been provided with a written contract or written statement of terms in relation to his employment with the Respondent and continued:

"… On contacting ACAS of his own accord, he had not had the benefit of legal advice at this juncture, he was asked who they could contact and he replied "Shakoor Nadeem Ahmed".

On taking legal advice, and after much investigation, it transpired that the Claimant was employed by SNA Transport Limited and Mr Ahmed was a director. We enclose confirmation for the Tribunal's attention.

The Respondent cited in the claim form is not wholly incorrect or wholly unrelated to the Respondent in the Early Conciliation Certificate but is one and the same and we ask that this minor issue is overlooked and the Claimant's claim is accepted as per Rule 12 (2A) of [the ET Rules] in the interests of Justice.

We refer the Tribunal to Mist v Derby Community NHS Trust [UK]EAT/0170/15 to support our application.

It is neither proportionate to the overriding objective or reasonable for the Claimant's claim to be dismissed on a minor issue as for all intent and purposes - the remainder of the details were correct and the Claimant had, by stating his name, thought he was doing the right thing for ACAS in order to enter conciliation and bring a claim.

We ask that his claim be allowed to proceed."

1. The letter, in the alternative, asked for the Tribunal to substitute the company name for Mr Ahmed's name in the certificate pursuant to Rule 34 of the ET Rules, citing similar matters in support. However, it is now common ground that the Rule does not empower the Tribunal to substitute the name of a party in an EC certificate.

1. By letter dated 20 July 2016 the Employment Tribunal advised that Employment Judge Martin had dismissed the application for reconsideration. The reasons were stated as follows:

"The rules are quite clear that there needs to be an ACAS certificate in relation to a prospective claim citing the name of the prospective Respondent. The difference in the name on the ET1 and the ACAS certificate is more than a minor error and hence the claim was rejected. Your suggestion that Judge Martin can exercise her discretion under Rule 34 of the [ET Rules] is rejected. What is missing is an ACAS Early Conciliation Certificate for SNA Transport Ltd. If one is obtained then the Tribunal can accept the Claimant's claim."

**The Law**

1. Section 18A ETA provides, as material:

"Requirement to contact ACAS before instituting proceedings

(1) Before a person ("the prospective claimant") presents an application to institute relevant proceedings relating to any matter, the prospective claimant must provide to ACAS prescribed information, in the prescribed manner, about that matter.

This is subject to subsection (7).

(2) On receiving the prescribed information in the prescribed manner, ACAS shall send a copy of it to a conciliation officer.

(3) The conciliation officer shall, during the prescribed period, endeavour to promote a settlement between the persons who would be parties to the proceedings.

(4) If -

(a) during the prescribed period the conciliation officer concludes that a settlement is not possible, or

(b) the prescribed period expires without a settlement having been reached,

the conciliation officer shall issue a certificate to that effect, in the prescribed manner, to the prospective claimant.

…

(8) A person who is subject to the requirement in subsection (1) may not present an application to institute relevant proceedings without a certificate under subsection (4).

…

(10) In subsections (1) to (7) "prescribed" means prescribed in employment tribunal procedure regulations."

1. "Prospective claimant", "prospective respondent" and "respondent" are respectively defined by Regulation 2 of the Employment Tribunals (Early Conciliation: Exemptions and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2014 ("the EC Rules of Procedure") as:

"…

"prospective claimant" means a person who is considering presenting a claim form to an Employment Tribunal in relation to relevant proceedings;

"prospective respondent" means the person who would be the respondent on the claim form which the prospective claimant is considering presenting to an Employment Tribunal;

…

"respondent" means the person against whom proceedings are brought in the Employment Tribunal; …"

1. The EC Rules are contained in the Schedule to those Regulations and provide, as material:

"1. Satisfying the requirement for early conciliation

To satisfy the requirement for early conciliation, a prospective claimant must -

(a) present a completed early conciliation form to ACAS in accordance with rule 2; or

(b) telephone ACAS in accordance with rule 3.

2. (1) An early conciliation form which is presented to ACAS must be -

(a) submitted using the online form on the ACAS website; or

(b) sent by post to the ACAS address set out on the early conciliation form.

(2) An early conciliation form must contain -

(a) the prospective claimant's name and address; and

(b) the prospective respondent's name and address.

(3) ACAS may reject a form that does not contain the information specified in paragraph (2) or may contact the prospective claimant to obtain any missing information.

(4) If ACAS rejects a form under paragraph (3), it must return the form to the prospective claimant.

3. (1) A prospective claimant telephoning ACAS for early conciliation must call the telephone number set out on the early conciliation form and tell ACAS -

(a) the prospective claimant's name and address; and

(b) the prospective respondent's name and address.

(2) ACAS must insert the information provided under paragraph (1) on to an early conciliation form.

5. Contact between ACAS and the parties

(1) ACAS must make reasonable attempts to contact the prospective claimant.

(2) If the prospective claimant consents to ACAS contacting the prospective respondent, ACAS must make reasonable attempts to contact the prospective respondent.

(3) If ACAS is unable to make contact with the prospective claimant or prospective respondent it must conclude that settlement is not possible.

6. Period for early conciliation

(1) For up to one calendar month starting on the date -

(a) of receipt by ACAS of the early conciliation form presented in accordance with rule 2; or

(b) the prospective claimant telephoned ACAS in accordance with rule 3,

the conciliation officer must endeavour to promote a settlement between the prospective claimant and the prospective respondent.

(2) The period for early conciliation may be extended by a conciliation officer, provided that the prospective claimant and prospective respondent consent to the extension and the conciliation officer considers that there is a reasonable prospect of achieving a settlement before the expiry of the extended period.

(3) An extension under paragraph (2) of the period for early conciliation may only occur once and may be for up to a maximum of 14 days.

7. Early conciliation certificate

(1) If at any point during the period for early conciliation, or during any extension of that period, the conciliation officer concludes that a settlement of a dispute, or part of it, is not possible, ACAS must issue an early conciliation certificate.

(2) If the period for early conciliation, including any extension of that period, expires without a settlement having been reached, ACAS must issue an early conciliation certificate.

8. An early conciliation certificate must contain -

(a) the name and address of the prospective claimant;

(b) the name and address of the prospective respondent;

(c) the date of receipt by ACAS of the early conciliation form presented in accordance with rule 2 or the date that the prospective claimant telephoned ACAS in accordance with rule 3;

(d) the unique reference number given by ACAS to the early conciliation certificate; and

(e) the date of issue of the certificate, which will be the date that the certificate is sent by ACAS, and a statement indicating the method by which the certificate is to be sent.

9. (1) Where ACAS issues an early conciliation certificate, it must send a copy to the prospective claimant and, if ACAS has had contact with the prospective respondent during the period for early conciliation, to the prospective respondent.

(2) If the prospective claimant or prospective respondent has provided an email address to ACAS, ACAS must send the early conciliation certificate by email and in any other case must send the early conciliation certificate by post.

(3) An early conciliation certificate will be deemed received -

(a) if sent by email, on the day it is sent; or

(b) if sent by post, on the day on which it would be delivered in the ordinary course of the post."

1. The ET Rules make provision for the rejection of a claim in terms that, as material, provide:

"12. Rejection: substantive defects

(1) The staff of the tribunal office shall refer a claim form to an Employment Judge if they consider that the claim, or part of it, may be -

…

(f) one which institutes relevant proceedings and the name of the respondent on the claim form is not the same as the name of the prospective respondent on the early conciliation certificate to which the early conciliation number relates.

…

(2A) The claim, or part of it, shall be rejected if the Judge considers that the claim, or part of it, is of a kind described in sub-paragraph (e) or (f) of paragraph (1) unless the Judge considers that the claimant made a minor error in relation to a name or address and it would not be in the interests of justice to reject the claim.

…

13. Reconsideration of rejection

(1) A claimant whose claim has been rejected (in whole or in part) under rule 10 or 12 may apply for a reconsideration on the basis that either -

(a) the decision to reject was wrong; or

(b) the notified defect can be rectified.

(2) The application shall be in writing and presented to the Tribunal within 14 days of the date that the notice of rejection was sent. It shall explain why the decision is said to have been wrong or rectify the defect and if the claimant wishes to request a hearing this shall be requested in the application.

(3) If the claimant does not request a hearing, or an Employment Judge decides, on considering the application, that the claim shall be accepted in full, the Judge shall determine the application without a hearing. Otherwise the application shall be considered at a hearing attended only by the claimant.

(4) If the Judge decides that the original rejection was correct but that the defect has been rectified, the claim shall be treated as presented on the date that the defect was rectified."

1. The rationale of the early notification scheme was explained by HHJ Eady QC in [Science Warehouse Ltd v Mills]() [2016] ICR 252. At paragraph 30 she stated:

"30. … The rationale of the early conciliation scheme is to encourage the settlement of employment disputes before litigation has commenced and positions have become entrenched. Apart from the initial obligation to contact Acas, however, the process is entirely voluntary. If the claimant has no interest in participating in a conciliation process, she is not obliged to do so; the same is true of the respondent. Early conciliation builds into the employment tribunal process a structured opportunity for parties to take advantage of Acas conciliation; albeit an opportunity that has to be formally acknowledged by the initial contact to be made with Acas and the issuing of an early conciliation certificate. The initial requirement placed upon a prospective claimant is, however, limited; it may even be by telephone. In any event, she is only required to provide her own name and address and that of the prospective respondent. …"

1. In her subsequent decision in [Mist v Derby Community Health Services NHS Trust]() [2016] ICR 543 HHJ Eady QC further emphasised the limited scope of the EC process. Thus at paragraph 55 she stated:

"55. … Early conciliation builds in an opportunity for pre-claim conciliation, but, other than the acknowledgement of that opportunity by means of the notification requirements, it does not oblige a prospective claimant to engage with the process in any substantive sense, still less does it give any rights to the prospective respondent (notably, any contact with the prospective respondent is conditional upon the claimant's consent; the respondent has no "right" to early conciliation as such). The minimal notification requirements, as I read them, are thus consistent with the general aims of early conciliation. There is no suggestion that the process was intended to set any greater threshold for a claimant before she can lodge tribunal proceedings. Indeed, the absence of the relevant information does not even result in an immediate rejection of the prospective claimant's notification: Acas may reject such a notification (Early Conciliation Rules, rule 2(3)), or it may contact the prospective claimant to obtain any missing information. That would suggest that, if Acas considers it has sufficient to permit it to make contact with the prospective respondent (should the claimant be amenable to that), it may equally choose not to reject the notification simply because there is a non-material error in providing the prospective respondent's name and address." (Original emphasis)

1. HHJ Eady QC also cautioned against the risk of the EC procedure:

"53. … giving rise to the kind of technical legal arguments that beset the abandoned statutory discipline and grievance pre-action requirements under the Employment Act 2002. …"

1. In that case, she dismissed the employer's cross-appeal on a point not raised before the Employment Tribunal, namely that the difference between the name of the prospective respondent as provided by the claimant to ACAS and thus contained in the EC certificate ("Royal Derby Hospital") and the name of the respondent on the claim form ("Derby Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust") was fatal to the claim.

1. HHJ Eady QC considered that the requirement under the EC Rules to provide the name and address of the prospective respondent:

"54. … is not for the precise or full legal title; it seems safe to assume (for example) that a trading name would be sufficient. The requirement is designed to ensure Acas is provided with sufficient information to be able to make contact with the prospective respondent if the claimant agrees such an attempt to conciliate should be made (Early Conciliation Rules, rule 5(2)). I do not read it as setting any higher bar." (Original emphasis)

**The Claimant's Submissions**

1. Counsel for the Claimant, Mr Andrew Watson, draws on the observations of HHJ Eady QC as providing support for his submission that the Employment Tribunal's decision was wrong in law. He submits in particular that:

(1) Rule 12(2A) and its language of "minor error" should be construed in the light of the purpose of the requirement to provide the name and address of the prospective respondent, namely to ensure that ACAS has sufficient information to be able to make contact with the prospective respondent if the claimant agrees that such an attempt to conciliate should be made.

(2) In consequence, a Tribunal confronted with different names and/or addresses for the prospective respondent and respondent in the EC certificate and claim form should ask itself the hypothetical question: if (with the claimant's consent) ACAS contacted the prospective respondent named by the prospective claimant, would it be likely to reach the respondent later named in the ET1 claim form?

(3) In considering the whole matter, the Employment Tribunal should give short shrift to unmeritorious "technical legal arguments" and should particularly bear in mind:

(a) the fact that many prospective claimants will not have legal representation;

(b) the real scope for ignorance and confusion by an employee as to the correct legal name of his/her employer. In particular, he cites trading names (see HHJ Eady QC's observations in Mist), complicated company structures, holding companies running venues (e.g. hotels, restaurants) and confusion of the person (the director) with the legal entity (the company); and

(c) the informality of the procedure, which entitles the prospective claimant to provide the prescribed information by telephone.

1. Turning to the facts of this case, Mr Watson submits that the only answer to the hypothetical question would be "yes". Mr Ahmed was the sole Director of the company that was the Claimant's true employer and ran the company from the address correctly stated in the EC certificate. If ACAS made contact with Mr Ahmed at that address for the purpose of conciliation, it would in reality (and assuming good faith on the part of Mr Ahmed) have made contact with the Claimant's true employer, namely his company.

1. Mr Watson then contrasts the position that would arise if the error had not been in the ET1 claim form, e.g. if the Claimant had continued to be unrepresented. In those circumstances there would have been no difference in the names and Rule 12(2A) would not come into play. The Respondent would have pointed out the error in its ET3 response. In the absence of consent to the necessary amendment, an application to amend would have been made and considered in the light of the established guidance in Selkent Bus Co Ltd v Moore [1996] ICR 836. In all probability, at least if the application was made within the time limit for bringing the claim, the Respondent company would be unable to defeat the application for amendment.

**The Respondent's Submissions**

1. On behalf of the Respondent company Mr Richard Rees focuses his argument on the fundamental and substantive legal distinction between a natural person and a legal person. If that distinction could only give rise to a "minor error", it would be difficult to envisage the circumstances in which Rules 12(1)(f) and 12(2A) could apply to any differences between the names of the prospective respondent and the respondent.

1. Further, there was no analogy with the example given in Mist of a trading name. If a company's trading name was given as a prospective respondent, it was still the company that was envisaged. That was not so if the name of an individual was given. The importance of that distinction was further emphasised by the potential liability of individuals to claims made under the Equality Act 2010 even where the actual employer was not named as respondent (see Barlow v Stone [2012] IRLR 898).

1. On the broader merits he pointed to the Particulars of Claim, which stated that the Claimant's tasks included the administration of the Respondent's contracts of service and tendering for such contracts, with the implication that he ought to have known the correct name of his employer, even in the absence of a written statement of terms or contract.

1. As to the proposed purposive of construction of the Rules, there was no warrant for this. In any event, HHJ Eady QC's observations in Mist were strictly obiter.

1. Accordingly, the Employment Judge's conclusion that the error was not "minor" and that the claim must therefore be rejected was the only conclusion that could have been reached. Mr Rees submitted that the practical solution in such circumstances - as noted by the Employment Judge in the last two sentences of his reconsideration decision - was to obtain a fresh and compliant EC certificate. However, he accepted that this solution would be subject to any argument on time limits (see ET Rules, Rule 13(1)(b) and 13(4); also, Cranwell v Cullen .

**The Claimant's Reply**

1. In reply Mr Watson submitted that to draw a strict line between the names of natural and legal persons could provide arbitrary results, e.g. where the company name was simply the owner's name with the addition of the word "Ltd". In this respect he pointed to the "SNA" in the Respondent company's name, which evidently represented Mr Ahmed's initials. Such a strict approach would involve just the type of legal technical bar that it was necessary to avoid.

1. As to discrimination claims against an individual, he accepted that there was a potential for ambiguity; but the conciliation process contained enough flexibility to deal with that distinction. In any event, that was not a reason to reject the purposive interpretation he advanced.

1. Mr Watson accepted that a new and compliant EC certificate could be obtained in these circumstances where the first certificate had been defective. This was in contrast to the position where the first certificate was compliant (see HMRC v Serra Garau . However, the claim would be treated as presented on the date that the defect was rectified (Rule 34) and so time limit issues could arise.

**Conclusions**

1. I have considerable sympathy for the Claimant's position. He made a mistake in identifying Mr Ahmed as his employer and did so at a time when he was unrepresented. However, I am not persuaded by Mr Watson's able submissions that there was any error of law in the Employment Judge's decision to reject his claim under Rule 12(2A).

1. First, even if it were legitimate to import the purposive interpretation, that is capable of producing anomalous results when applied to errors in the address of the prospective respondent. Thus, if the Claimant had given the correct name of his employer but had mistakenly given an address with the wrong number in Kingston Road, an Employment Judge might well (depending on the particular facts and circumstances) have concluded that this was a minor error and that it would not be in the interests of justice to reject the claim. By contrast, the erroneous address would be likely to fail the suggested test of sufficiency for ACAS to contact the Respondent. As Mr Watson acknowledged in argument, the prospect of doing so would be dependent on fortuity, e.g. local knowledge of a postman or someone at the given address. Indeed, the suggested hypothetical question does not engage with the possibility of a wrong address.

1. Secondly, whilst readily acknowledging the purpose of the EC procedure as outlined by HHJ Eady QC, I do not consider that any gloss on the simple and straightforward language of Rules 12(1)(f) and 12(2A) is warranted. Furthermore, its likely effect would be to foster further legal technical arguments of the type which have been deprecated.

1. In my judgment, this is a classic issue for Employment Judges to determine, by application of their good sense and great experience to the evidence before them and the language of Rule 12(2A). The first stage involves a judgment as to whether or not the difference in name or address is a "minor error". If not, the claim must be rejected. If it is a minor error, there is a further judgment to be made as to whether it would not be in the interests of justice to reject the claim. Circumstances in which it would be in the interests of justice to reject a claim where a minor error has been made are not easy to envisage, but the second stage allows for that possibility.

1. Although these judgments do not (at least in respect of the first stage decision on "minor error") involve the exercise of a discretion, they enjoy a similarly generous ambit. Appellate interference with those judgments will only be on the familiar grounds.

1. With these principles in mind, I see no basis to conclude that there was any error of law in the Employment Judge's judgment that the difference in the names on the EC certificate and the claim form was not a minor error; nor, therefore, in the conclusion that the claim must be rejected.

1. In reaching that conclusion I do not accept Mr Rees' submission that the difference between the names of a natural person and a legal person could never (as a matter of law) be a minor error within the meaning and context of Rule 12(2A). Each case involves a judgment on its own facts. However, in this case I see no basis to question the Employment Judge's conclusion that the difference between "Mr Shakoor Nadeem Ahmed" and "SNA Transport Ltd" was not a minor error.

1. I have also borne in mind Mr Watson's submission as to the potential contrast with an application to amend a Respondent's name in the ET1 claim form and the principles in Selkent. However, these are different rules in different terms.

1. Conversely, I have not given weight to the Claimant's option, noted by the Employment Judge in his reconsideration decision, to obtain a fresh and compliant EC certificate. The value of that option may have been qualified by the need to obtain an extension of time for the Claimant to proceed; and in any event it is irrelevant to the issue of whether or not there was a "minor error".

1. Accordingly, my conclusion is that the appeal must be dismissed.