Miss A Ali v Repeat Prescription Order Line Ltd T/a Halls The Chemist: 3304017/2020
JUDGMENT
[1]The tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the Claimants claims, she having complied with the early conciliation requirements.REASONS
[1]The Claimant started work for the Respondent to complete her qualification as a Pharmacist on 5 August 2019.[2]The Respondents sole shareholders and directors and Mr and Mrs Damani. Mr Damani is a Pharmacist and supervised the Claimant.[3]On 7 February 2020 the Claimant started early conciliation naming “Repeat Prescription Order Line Ltd t/a Halls The Chemist“ as the prospective Respondent. Early conciliation came to an end on 21 March 2020. Case Number: 3304017/2020 (A)[4]On 18 April 2020 the Claimant presented a claim to the tribunal identifying “Mr S Damani” as the Respondent, and giving Halls The Chemist as the first line of the address.[5]On 19 May 2020 the Respondents solicitors write to the Tribunal o express the view the claim should have been rejected.[6]The Respondent’s Response also took the point that this was a breach of Rule 12(1)(f) of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013.[7]The parties consented to my dealing with this issue today.[8]I have considered the decisions of the Employment Appeal Tribunal in Mist v Derby Community NHS Trust [2016] ICR 543 and Giny v SMA Transport Ltd UKEAT/0317/16.[9]The Respondent does not dispute that these proceedings came to its knowledge, and Responses have been entered for both Repeat Prescription Order Line Ltd t/a Halls The Chemist and Mr Damani.[10]I take the view that the Claimants error is of a minor nature and that it would not be in the interests of justice for this claim to be rejected.