The Secretary seemingly concluded that the form was not on 'the prescribed form' due to the reduction in size, and therefore rejected it.
Giving the judgment, Elias P. held:
- it is incumbent on the Secretary to explain why an ET1 is not being accepted (as here, the Claimant was "understandably...wholly bemused why the forms had been rejected") (para. 18)
- a reduction in size due to the faxing process is not a reason to reject a form, particularly when lodging by fax is specifically provided as a legitimate way of presenting the claim - otherwise one reaches a "ludicrous result" (para. 35)
Grant v In 2 Focus