Bickley v John Lewis: EAT rules on name change between EC certificate and ET1 presentation

The Employment Appeal Tribunal has allowed an appeal by consent in Bickley v John Lewis Plc [2026] EAT 59, finding that a legal officer erred in rejecting an ET1 claim form solely because the claimant's name differed from that on the early conciliation certificate — a discrepancy caused by a deed poll name change between the two documents.

The claimant, Mr Isaac Bickley, had obtained an EC certificate under his previous name, Miss Annabel Bickley, before presenting a gender reassignment discrimination claim to the tribunal on 9 July 2024. By that point, he had legally changed his name by deed poll. The legal officer rejected the claim under Rule 12(1)(e) of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013, which requires the name of the claimant on the ET1 to correspond with that on the EC certificate.

The error of law

Deputy Judge Marcus Pilgerstorfer KC, sitting in chambers, identified two distinct errors in the rejection decision. First, the legal officer had failed to consider Rule 12(2A) of the 2013 Rules, which carves out an exception to mandatory rejection where the claimant made an error "in relation to a name" and it would not be in the interests of justice to reject the claim.

The Deputy Judge took a broad view of that phrase. Rather than confining it to mistakes such as misspellings or wrong names, he held that it extends to any error connected to or linked with a name. The claimant's failure to include his former name alongside his current legal name — and to explain the deed poll change — fell within that wider conception. Had he described himself on the ET1 as "Mr Isaac Bickley, formerly known as Miss Annabel Bickley", the requirement under Rule 12(1)(e) would, in the Deputy Judge's view, have been satisfied. The legal officer's failure to engage with Rule 12(2A) at all, despite the gender reassignment claim being apparent on the face of the ET1, constituted an error of law.

Second, the Deputy Judge held that the legal officer had also failed to consider Rule 6 of the 2013 Rules, which confers a broad power to waive or vary requirements in response to procedural irregularities. Citing Bean LJ's observation in Clark & Others v Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd [2023] IRLR 562 that the Rule 6 waiver power is "a very wide one", the Deputy Judge concluded that it would have been just to treat the Rule 12(1)(e) requirement as satisfied — given that the claimant had given his name accurately on each document as at the date it was issued, and the divergence arose solely from an intervening legal name change.

Substituted decision and limitation consequences

An earlier reconsideration by Regional Employment Judge Foxwell had accepted the claim, but only from 25 September 2024 — the date on which the claimant had effectively explained the discrepancy — rather than from the original presentation date. That raised a significant limitation problem: based on an effective date of termination of 18 February 2024, the claim appeared to have been in time as presented on 9 July 2024, but out of time if treated as presented in September.

The EAT substituted a decision accepting the claim as at 9 July 2024. Only one outcome was available on the facts: the claim fell within the Rule 12(2A) exception, and it would not have been in the interests of justice to reject it.

Practical implications

The case clarifies that a name mismatch between an EC certificate and an ET1 does not automatically attract rejection where the discrepancy results from a lawful name change. Advisers should ensure that claimants who have changed their names — whether by deed poll, marriage, or otherwise — include both their current and former names on the ET1 and provide a brief explanation of the change. Failure to do so may constitute an error "in relation to a name", but as this case confirms, that is a ground for the tribunal to exercise discretion, not a basis for automatic rejection without further inquiry.