Ms Elaina Cohen v Mr Khalid Mahmood MP (2023)

The Claimant had inserted the incorrect ACAS ECC number on her ET1 form. The Claimant corrected the error immediately upon being notified of the issue, with the date of correction being held to be the date the case was lodged. However, by that point, limitation had expired. Nevertheless, the ET allowed the claim in by extending time on the grounds that it had not been reasonably practical to lodge the claim earlier, given that the Claimant had not been aware of the error beforehand and had assumed that she had submitted the claim in good time within the limitation period. The Respondent appealed on the grounds that the ET had failed to properly consider whether the mistake itself of inserting the incorrect ACAS ECC number on the ET1 form was a reasonable one. However, the EAT rejected that appeal. Using Adams v British Telecommunications Plc (2016) as authority, the EAT held that the act of inserting the incorrect number was "relevant....but not determinative." It ruled that the ET had correctly identified that the real issue was "whether the mistaken belief that a form had been correctly presented and it was therefore unnecessary to do anything more was reasonable having regard to all facts and circumstances." Given this, the EAT held that the decision by the ET to extend time "was certainly not a perverse one." The Claimant's appeal on a separate issue was upheld and the EAT remitted that matter back to the ET.