Langstaff P also approved observations made by HHJ Eady QC in Science Warehouse Ltd v Mills [2016] ICR 252 that, save for the obligation to provide contact information to ACAS, the early conciliation
Langstaff P also approved observations made by HHJ Eady QC in Science Warehouse Ltd v Mills [2016] ICR 252 that, save for the obligation to provide contact information to ACAS, the early conciliation process is entirely voluntary. If a claimant has no interest in participating in an early conciliation process, she is not obliged to do so. If, for example the prospective claimant does not consent to ACAS contacting the respective respondent, the early conciliation process will be at an end, the obligation under paragraph 7 of the Schedule will arise and ACAS will be required to issue an early conciliation certificate. In her judgment in Science Warehouse Ltd, HHJ Eady QC put the point so:
‘30. ... 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. She is not required to state the nature of the claim she might subsequently bring, still less to label it under the relevant statutory provisions ....’”
Thus an ECC may be issued almost immediately after the prospective claimant’s notification to ACAS because they have made it clear that they are not interested in conciliation.
THE 2002 ACT
- Heading
- Sir Nicholas Underhill
- PROCEDURAL HISTORY
- THE RELEVANT LEGISLATION
- THE EARLY CONCILIATION PROVISIONS
- The Statutory Provisions
- The Early Conciliation Regulations
- The Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure
- THE EXTENT OF THE EARLY CONCILIATION OBLIGATIONS
- Langstaff P also approved observations made by HHJ Eady QC in Science Warehouse Ltd v Mills [2016] ICR 252 that, save for the obligation to provide contact information to ACAS, the early conciliation
- THE ISSUES
- THE APPEAL: JURISDICTION
- PARAS 29-30: “JURISDICTION”
- PARAS 31-32: CORE CONSTRUCTION
- PARAS. 33-34: CONSISTENCY WITH THE SCHEME OF THE RULES
- PARA. 35: LATE-DISCOVERED NON-COMPLIANCE
- PARAS. 37-38: THE AUTHORITIES
- PARAS. 39-40: DISMISSAL/STRIKING-OUT AS CASE MANAGEMENT
- CONCLUSION ON THE APPEAL
- THE CROSS-APPEAL: AMENDMENT
- THE ET’s DECISION
- THE APPELLANTS’ CHALLENGE
- Does section 18 A (1) apply to permission to amend?
- Was permission to amend wrong in principle?
- Judge Crosfill’s exercise of his discretion
- Conclusions
![CA-2025-000379 - [2025] EWCA Civ 1357](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_Sjvxvlx.png)