Rathbone & Roche Ltd v Madureira

For the extension in section 207B(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, a period ending one month after Day B expires on the corresponding calendar date in the following month. The calculation is straightforward: identify the ordinary limitation date, exclude the period prescribed by section 207B(3), and then apply section 207B(4) if that date falls within its specified period.

A claim received after the corresponding date is out of time. A tribunal's permissible finding that timely presentation was reasonably practicable cannot be displaced on appeal merely because the appellate tribunal might have reached a different view.

The Claimant brought an unfair-dismissal claim against the Respondent. The Employment Tribunal found that her effective date of termination was 30 November 2017. It held that the claim, received on 27 April 2018, was in time. Alternatively, it held that it had been reasonably practicable for the Claimant to present the claim in time.

The Respondent appealed. The effective date of termination was not challenged. The central issue was whether the statutory extension for ACAS early conciliation made 27 April 2018 the last day for presentation, or whether the claim was one day late.

1. Appeal allowed. The Employment Tribunal erred in assuming that a 30 November 2017 effective date of termination necessarily meant that the claim was in time.

2. Under section 111(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, the ordinary three-month period expired on 28 February 2018. Applying section 207B(3), the period from the day after Day A to Day B was excluded. The adjusted period therefore expired on 28 March 2018.

3. Section 207B(4) then applied because that adjusted time limit would have expired between Day A and one month after Day B. Following the corresponding-date principle explained in Tanveer v East London Bus and Coach Company and derived from Dodds v Walker, one month after Day B, 26 March 2018, was 26 April 2018. The claim received on 27 April 2018 was therefore presented one day out of time.

4. The Claimant's submissions concerning reasonable practicability could not alter that result. There was no cross-appeal, and the Tribunal had made a permissible factual finding that timely presentation had been reasonably practicable. The appellate tribunal could not substitute its own view.

• Employment Appeal Tribunal: allowed the Respondent's appeal and held that the unfair-dismissal claim was presented one day out of time.
• Employment Tribunal, London South: found an effective date of termination of 30 November 2017 and held the claim in time; alternatively, it found that timely presentation had been reasonably practicable.