Giny v SNA Transport Ltd.


In Giny v SNA Transport Ltd., Mr Giny named Mr Ahmed, a director of SNA Transport Ltd. (SNA), as the prospective respondent during the ACAS early conciliation process. He subsequently instructed solicitors, who prepared his claim form, and they correctly named the SNA as the respondent. Mr Giny argued that despite the “minor error” in mixing up the names, the claim should be allowed to proceed.


The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) applied the two-stage test below and rejected the claimant’s application for reconsideration. 1. Is it a minor error? No—the claim is thrown out. 2. If it is a minor error, is it in the interests of justice to allow the claim to proceed?

In principle, the distinction between a natural (Mr Ahmed) and a legal person (SNA) could amount to a minor error; but each case should be considered on its facts, and in this case, it was not.


Evidently, the EAT is cracking down on administration. Get your details right, and don’t forget to dot your i’s and cross those t’s.