The Claimant made claims, through a solicitor, of unfair dismissal and arrears of pay and indicated on the claim form that further particulars were attached. Unfortunately, the attached particulars related to a different case entirely. The Tribunal staff referred the claim form to an EJ according to Rule 12(1) which provides that the staff of the Tribunal must refer a claim form to an EJ if they consider (among other things) that the claim or part of it may be (1) one which the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to consider, or (2) in a form which cannot sensibly be responded to or is otherwise an abuse of the process. The EJ must reject the claim, or part of it, if he considers that the claim is such a claim (Rule 12(2)). The first EJ allowed the claims to proceed and an application by the Respondent for a reconsideration was rejected. An appeal to the EAT (read the text here was also dismissed - although the EAT said that no reasonable EJ properly directing himself in law could have concluded that an ET1 in this form could sensibly be responded to, they went on to conclude that Rule 12(1)(b) was ultra vires and so dismissed the appeal. The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (who were not a party to the original case) appealed to the Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal held that the EAT was wrong on both counts. The ET1 form was in a form which could sensibly be responded to as the Respondent knew perfectly well that they had dismissed, then immediately re-employed, the Claimant. The court also concluded that the ET's rejection of a claim pursuant to rule 12 was not a 'determination of proceedings' and accordingly there was nothing in section 7(3A)-(3C) of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 which renders any of rule 12(1)-(2) ultra vires.