The EAT has handed down judgment in Grant v In 2 Focus, dealing with an ET1 form which was rejected because it was slightly shrunk during the faxing process.
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)