Remedies and penalties
Bess Sturman and Richard Port of Addleshaw Goddard outline the latest legal rulings and explain what you need to know to avoid tribunals.
Zoe Balmforth and Joe Glavina of Addleshaw Goddard outline the latest legal rulings and explain what you need to know to avoid tribunals.
In Skiggs v South West Trains Ltd, the EAT holds that the employment tribunal was entitled to hold, on the facts, that an investigative meeting concerning a grievance about an employee who had previously been disciplined was not a disciplinary hearing for the purpose of s.10 of the Employment Relations Act 1999.
In Voith Turbo Ltd v Stowe, the EAT holds that, applying the principles established in Norton Tool Co Ltd v Tewson, the tribunal was entitled to find that an unfairly dismissed employee did not have to give credit for earnings achieved during the period covered by notice pay made by his former employer.
In Scott v Commissioners of Inland Revenue the Court of Appeal holds that an employment tribunal erred in awarding only £15,000 in respect of the psychiatric injury caused to an employee by the way in which his employer dealt with allegations of sexual harassment made against him by a work colleague.
In Eastwood and another v Magnox Electric plc; McCabe v Cornwall County Council and others, the House of Lords holds that, in cases where psychiatric injury is alleged to have been caused by acts of the employer committed prior to, and separately from the act of dismissal itself, a cause of action will exist at common law for damages.
In Dunnachie v Kingston-upon-Hull City Council, the House of Lords holds that Lord Hoffman's comments in Johnson were obiter and, therefore, did not prevent the House of Lords from finding that unfair dismissal compensation should be restricted to economic losses only.
In Hardy v Polk (Leeds) Ltd [2004] IRLR 420 EAT, the Employment Appeal Tribunal held that an employee who is dismissed without notice or pay in lieu of notice is under a duty to mitigate his or her loss in respect of the notice period, and that earnings received from another employer during the (nominal) notice period must be offset against the compensatory award.
In Dunnachie v Kingston upon Hull City Council, the Court of Appeal holds that the comments by Lord Hoffmann in Johnson v Unisys, to the effect that the interpretation of (what is now) s.123 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 given in Norton Tool Co Ltd v Tewson was too narrow in limiting unfair dismissal compensation to economic losses, were obiter and did not bind the Court in the present case.
In Virgo Fidelis School v Boyle [2004] IRLR 268 EAT, the Employment Appeal Tribunal held that awards of compensation for injury to feelings in whistleblowing cases should be based on the guidelines set out by the Court of Appeal in Vento v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police [2003] IRLR 102 for race and sex discrimination cases.
Employment law cases: HR and legal information and guidance relating to remedies and penalties.