The first was the case of Sterling v United Learning Trust where the Claimant submitted her ET1 missing some digits from the EC number on the form. The form was returned by the Tribunal. Her representative did not make an application for a reconsideration of the rejection and also did not argue that it was not reasonably practicable for the employee to have lodged it in time. The EAT dismissed the challenge to the Tribunal rejecting the claim. The burden was on the Claimant to prove it was not reasonably practicable and that there was a duty on him to ensure that the EC number was cited correctly.
The second is a sad and cautionary tale. The Claimant put in the claim to Tribunal without complying with ACAS early conciliation. The Judge rejected the claim as a result and the EAT upheld the decision. The Employment Judge had no permitted exceptions, it was an absolute and strict requirement. There was no discretion even if, as in this case, the Claimant may have had a case where she was appallingly treated including sexually harassed if the allegations were true. Even where there was a suggestion she did not comply with ACAS as she mistakenly believed that she might have to speak to the alleged harasser.