A great description by a High Court Judge of the 2004 procedures as "rebarbative" (go on, look it up here!).
In this case, the EAT rejected the argument that the three-month extension of time following sending a grievance does not engage if the grievance is sent before the effective date of termination.
Curiously, the argument is technically correct (if you suffer from a virulent strain of pedantry). But the result is absurd, and the EAT had no hesitation in dismissing the appeal. Underhill J. held that the extension of time for presenting a claim arises even when the grievance is lodged before the effective date of termination, and therefore not technically 'within the normal time limit'.
Curiously, the point arose in two cases on which judgment was handed down by the same judge on the same day. The main case is HM Prison Service v Barula, and the reasoning was affirmed then in Lewisham v Colbourne