The Claimant's employment with the Respondent was terminated, and the Claimant contacted ACAS twice under the early conciliation ("EC") procedure. Her claim was submitted within the time limit for presentation under the second EC certificate, but out of time in relation to the first EC certificate. The ET ruled that the first EC certificate was valid and so the Claimant's claim was submitted out of time. The Claimant appealed on the ground that the ET had failed to address the fact that "the wrong address" (that is, one where the Claimant had a meeting with a representative of the Respondent, but not the Respondent's registered address) was included on the first EC certificate, and so that certificate was invalid.

The EAT held that, although the ET had erred in law in failing to consider the question of whether the first EC certificate was invalid, by reference to the Respondent's address, there was only one possible answer that the ET could have validly reached. Accordingly, the first EC certificate was valid and, as the ET held on other grounds, the claim was brought out of time.