![CA-2025-000379 - [2025] EWCA Civ 1357](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_Sjvxvlx.png){kind=logo}
THE APPEAL: JURISDICTION
THE APPEAL: JURISDICTION
INTRODUCTION
I should say at the outset that I would allow the appeal. I confess that I have not found the point entirely easy, but in the end I have concluded that the requirements imposed by section 18A do indeed go to jurisdiction and that the detriment claim should have been dismissed or struck out because of the Claimant’s failure to comply with them. It is most convenient to give my reasons for that conclusion by reference to the relevant paragraphs of Swift J’s judgment (paras. 29-40). His reasons are, if I may say so, clear and well-structured, and I believe it will make most sense to take the various elements in them in turn.
- 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