The Claimant brought a claim in the ET for unfair dismissal, but there was some uncertainty about her effective date of termination ("EDT"). The ET concluded that the Claimant's claim had been brought in time, despite the Respondent's assertion that, based on her EDT, the Claimant's limitation date to present her claim to the ET was one day earlier. The Respondent was permitted to appeal on the basis that, applying the "corresponding date rule" set out in Tanveer v East London Bus Coach Company to section 207B of the Employment Rights Act 1996, it was arguable that the claim was presented one day late.

The EAT held that the ET had correctly set out the law relating to the extension of time limits to facilitate conciliation before the institution of proceedings, but it did not go on to undertake the date calculation envisaged by section 207B. Since the effect of the corresponding date rule is that a period a month "from" or "after" a particular date ends on the corresponding date in the following month, the claim was received by the ET one day out of time.