Remedies and penalties
In Da'Bell v NSPCC [2010] IRLR 19 EAT, the EAT has confirmed the increase of the Vento bands for compensation for injury to feelings in discrimination cases in line with inflation.
In Stuart Peters Ltd v Bell [2009] IRLR 941 CA, the Court of Appeal held that, in a case of constructive unfair dismissal, the Norton Tool principle that compensation for unfair dismissal without notice must include a sum representing the employee's full pay during his or her notice period does not apply, and the employee must give credit for any earnings during this period.
This week's case of the week, provided by DLA Piper, covers unfair dismissal and pension loss.
In Central & North West London NHS Foundation Trust v Abimbola EAT/0542/08, the EAT held that the employment tribunal had wrongly excluded highly relevant factors from its consideration of whether or not it was practicable to order reinstatement following a finding of unfair dismissal.
In Rank Nemo (DMS) Ltd v Coutinho [2009] EWCA Civ 454 CA, the Court of Appeal held that an employment tribunal had erred in law in refusing to accept a victimisation claim based on the respondent's failure to pay an award of compensation.
In Haine and another v Day [2008] IRLR 642, the Court of Appeal held that a protective award made after the employer company went into liquidation in respect of its failure to consult before making collective redundancies was a provable, and therefore potentially recoverable, debt.
In Corr (administratix of the estate of Thomas Corr (deceased)) v IBC Vehicles Ltd [2008] UKHL 13, the House of Lords held that the employer of a man who was injured at work and, as a consequence, suffered severe depression that led to suicide, was liable under the Fatal Accidents Act 1976 for loss attributable to his suicide.
In Hutchins v Permacell Finesse Ltd (in administration) EAT/0350/07, the EAT held that the starting point for determining a protective award is 90 days' pay, even where fewer than 100 redundancies are involved and the minimum consultation period is 30 days.
Where the Central Arbitration Committee has found an employer to be in breach of certain obligations under the Information and Consultation of Employees Regulations 2004, the EAT may order the employer to pay a financial penalty to the secretary of state. In the first case to arise on this point, Amicus v MacMillan Publishers Ltd EAT/0185/07, the EAT ordered the employer to pay £55,000 in respect of a "very grave" breach.
Judith Harris, professional support lawyer at Addleshaw Goddard, outlines the latest legal rulings.
Employment law cases: HR and legal information and guidance relating to remedies and penalties.