Introduction

The case of Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd v Clark & Ors ([2023] EWCA Civ 386) addresses significant procedural aspects within the Employment Tribunals (ET) system, particularly focusing on the requirements surrounding Early Conciliation (EC) certificates in multiple claim scenarios. This appellate decision undertaken by the England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) on April 6, 2023, scrutinizes whether the ET should mandate each claimant in a multiple claim form to provide an individual EC number or if a single EC number suffices for the group.

The dispute originated from numerous equal pay claims filed by Sainsbury's employees against major retail employers, including Sainsbury's, Asda, and Tesco. The core issue revolves around whether the ET improperly struck out a significant number of these claims due to procedural technicalities related to the inclusion of EC certificate reference numbers.

Summary of the Judgment

The Employment Tribunal initially struck out 700 of 865 claims on the basis that the claim forms lacked the appropriate EC certificate reference numbers. Sainsbury's appealed this decision, asserting that no substantive failure occurred as all claimants had indeed engaged in EC and possessed valid certificates; the only omission was the specific reference numbers on the claim forms.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) sided with the claimants, restoring their claims. Sainsbury's further appealed to the Court of Appeal, arguing that the original interpretation of the ET rules was flawed. However, the Court of Appeal upheld the EAT's decision, emphasizing that the ET's procedural requirements should not erect unnecessary barriers to justice, especially when claimants have fulfilled their substantive obligations under EC.

The Court concluded that the rules should be interpreted in a manner that aligns with the overriding objective of the ET system: to handle cases fairly and justly without imposing undue technical hurdles. Consequently, the appellants' claims were reinstated, reinforcing the principle that procedural compliance should not negate the substantive merits of a claim.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively references prior cases to establish jurisprudential consistency and guide the interpretation of ET rules. Notably, it refers to:

• Asda Stores Ltd v Brierley ([2016] EWCA Civ 566; [2019] EWCA Civ 8; [2019] EWCA Civ 544): These cases handled preliminary issues related to similar multiple claim forms and their procedural compliance.
• E.ON Control Solutions Ltd v Caspall [2020] ICR 552: This case dealt with errors in EC certificate numbers in single claim scenarios, establishing that incorrect numbers warrant rejection of claims.
• Sterling v United Learning Trust (EAT 18 February 2015): Focused on the necessity of accurate EC numbers, reinforcing the importance of procedural correctness.
• Trustees of the William Jones's Schools Foundation v Parry [2018] EWCA Civ 672; [2018] ICR 1807: Highlighted the balance between procedural adherence and substantive justice.

These precedents collectively underline the courts' cautious approach towards procedural compliance, especially concerning EC requirements, and set the stage for interpreting their application in multiple claim contexts.

Legal Reasoning

The Court of Appeal meticulously dissected the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure, particularly Rules 10 and 12, which govern the inclusion of EC certificate numbers in claim forms. The central legal contention was whether a single EC number is sufficient for multiple claimants on a single claim form.

The Court emphasized the overriding objective of ET rules: to ensure that genuine claims proceed without being hindered by technicalities. It argued that the legislative intent behind requiring EC certificates was to verify that claimants had engaged in EC, thereby promoting early dispute resolution and reducing tribunal caseloads.

The Court found that necessitating each claimant in a multiple claim to provide an individual EC number imposes an undue procedural burden without enhancing the verification process. Instead, it could unjustly bar legitimate claims where claimants have complied substantively with EC but failed to meet a rigid procedural requirement.

Furthermore, the Court critiqued the previous interpretations of single-claim scenarios applied rigidly to multiple claims, arguing that the complexities inherent in multiple claims necessitate a more flexible approach. The decision underscored that as long as the substantive EC requirement is fulfilled, procedural lapses should not preemptively invalidate claims.

Impact

This judgment has profound implications for future ET proceedings, especially those involving multiple claim forms. Key impacts include:

• Procedural Flexibility: ETs are now afforded greater discretion in interpreting procedural rules, ensuring that genuine claims are not dismissed due to minor technical oversights.
• Clarification of ET Rules: The decision clarifies the application of Rules 10 and 12 in multiple claim contexts, promoting consistency and fairness.
• Encouragement of Group Claims: By reducing procedural barriers, the judgment encourages employees to pursue group claims, potentially streamlining the resolution of widespread employment disputes.
• Legal Precedent: The case sets a precedent for appellate courts to prioritize substantive justice over procedural compliance, influencing how similar cases may be adjudicated in the future.

Overall, the ruling reinforces the principle that procedural rules should facilitate, rather than obstruct, access to justice.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Early Conciliation (EC)

Early Conciliation is a mandatory preliminary step in the UK employment dispute resolution process. Before filing a claim with an Employment Tribunal, claimants must attempt to resolve their dispute through EC facilitated by the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (ACAS). If conciliation fails, an EC certificate is issued, allowing the claimant to proceed with their tribunal claim.

Employment Tribunal (ET) Rules of Procedure

These rules govern how claims are filed and processed within the ET system. Key rules discussed in this case include:

• Rule 10: Requires claim forms to include specific information, such as claimants' and respondents' names and addresses, and an EC number unless exempt.
• Rule 12: Provides grounds for rejecting claims that do not comply with procedural requirements, including the absence or inaccuracy of EC numbers.

Multiple Claims

Multiple claims refer to scenarios where several individuals file claims collectively on a single ET1 form, typically because their claims arise from the same set of facts or circumstances within their employment.

EC Certificate Number

This is a unique reference number issued by ACAS upon the completion of EC. It serves as proof that the claimant has engaged in the required conciliation process before approaching the ET.

Conclusion

The appellate decision in Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd v Clark & Ors marks a pivotal moment in the administration of Employment Tribunal claims, especially those involving multiple claimants. By prioritizing substantive justice over procedural rigidity, the Court of Appeal has reinforced the ET system's accessibility and fairness. This judgment ensures that employees are not unduly thwarted in their pursuit of rightful claims due to technical discrepancies, thereby upholding the fundamental principles of equitable legal proceedings.

Moving forward, Employment Tribunals must navigate the balance between enforcing procedural requirements and facilitating genuine claims. This case serves as a benchmark for interpreting ET rules with an emphasis on fairness, ensuring that the legal framework remains both robust and just.