![CA-2025-000379 - [2025] EWCA Civ 1357](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_Sjvxvlx.png){kind=logo}
THE EXTENT OF THE EARLY CONCILIATION OBLIGATIONS
THE EXTENT OF THE EARLY CONCILIATION OBLIGATIONS
I should emphasise, because it is relevant to the submissions before us, that the requirements imposed on the parties to an employment dispute by the early conciliation provisions are extremely limited. The point is made by Swift J at para. 4 of his judgment as follows:
“In his judgment in Drake International Systems Ltd v Blue Arrow Ltd [2016] ICR 445, Langstaff P explained the purpose of the provisions in the ETA 1996 and the 2014 Regulations as being
‘... to provide an opportunity for the parties to take advantage of ACAS conciliation, if they wish, led by the claimant in respect of what is broadly termed “a matter”’.
- 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