The EAT has emphasised the importance of getting the spelling of the Respondent's details correct in the ET1.
In Anthony Chowles t/a Granary Pine v West, the EAT held that where a Respondent’s name had been misspelled and his address misstated on the ET1 (and that was the name and address to which it was posted by the Secretary), the claim had not been sent to him within the meaning of the Rules.
Accordingly, there was no need to enquire into the matter of fact of whether the intended Respondent had received the ET1. The usual consequences did not flow and, in particular, a default judgment that had been entered in the absence of a response was set aside.
The Claimant had been employed by Anthony Chowles but had entered the name 'Anthony Charles' on the ET1 and had made two errors in the address including omitting three digits from the postcode.
[Thanks to Anthony Cutler, pupil barrister at 1 Temple Gardens, for providing this summary]