Employment Tribunal Cannot Reject Claim Solely Due to Missed ACAS Conciliation
The EAT found an Employment Tribunal erred in rejecting a claim due to a missed ACAS early conciliation, emphasising focus on the claims merits.
• public
Abel Estate Agent Ltd & Ors v Reynolds: Key Ruling
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has overturned a decision by an Employment Tribunal (ET) to reject a claim solely based on the claimant's failure to engage with the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (ACAS) for early conciliation. The case, Abel Estate Agent Ltd & Ors v Reynolds [2025] EAT 6, highlights the importance of considering the merits of a case, even when procedural requirements haven't been strictly followed.
Background of the Case
Elizabeth Reynolds brought a claim against Abel Estate Agent Ltd and several other associated companies and individuals, alleging that her dismissal was due to making a protected disclosure (whistleblowing). Reynolds initially filed her claim, including a claim under Section 48 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, without first contacting ACAS for early conciliation – a process normally required before instituting relevant proceedings. The ET did not initially reject the claim, but later, at a case management hearing, decided to reject the Section 48 claim due to the lack of ACAS conciliation.
EAT's Decision
The EAT, led by Mr Justice Swift, allowed the appeal, finding that the Employment Tribunal had erred in rejecting the claim outright. The EAT referenced the case of Clark v Sainsbury’s Supermarket Ltd [2023] ICR 1169, emphasising that once a claim has been accepted by the Tribunal, the focus should shift to whether the claim should be dismissed or struck out, rather than rejected. The EAT also noted that the ET should have considered whether it had the jurisdiction to hear the Section 48 claim, or to strike out the claim, but ultimately decided against doing so.
Early Conciliation and Tribunal Jurisdiction
A crucial point of contention was whether the failure to comply with the early conciliation requirements of Section 18A of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 deprived the Employment Tribunal of jurisdiction to hear the claim. The EAT disagreed with the earlier decision in Pryce v Baxterstorey Ltd [2022] EAT 61, concluding that the failure to comply with early conciliation did not automatically strip the Tribunal of its power to hear the case. The EAT emphasized that Section 18A aims to encourage early resolution through ACAS, but doesn't act as an absolute bar to Tribunal proceedings.
Implications for Employers and Employees
This ruling provides important clarification for both employers and employees. While early conciliation remains a necessary step in most employment claims, a failure to comply does not automatically nullify a claim. Tribunals must consider the specific circumstances and whether dismissing or striking out the claim is appropriate, ensuring that the overriding objective of fair and just proceedings is upheld.
Moving Forward
The EAT has remitted Ms. Reynolds’ claims back to the Employment Tribunal, instructing them to consider the unfair dismissal and Section 48 claims on their merits. This decision reinforces the principle that procedural technicalities should not overshadow the core issues of a case.
Read the entire judgement here: Abel Estate Agent Ltd & Ors v Elizabeth Reynolds [2025] EAT 6
