Topics

Remedies and penalties

New and updated

  • Date:
    14 June 2010
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    Redundancy: Customer request did not justify failure to consult

    In Shanahan Engineering v Unite the Union EAT/0411/09, the EAT held that an employment tribunal was right to find that, in relation to collective redundancy consultation, although a customer's instruction amounted to "special circumstances", absolving the employer of the need to start consultation 30 days in advance of the first redundancy, it did not absolve it of all obligations to consult. However, the tribunal should have taken into account the special circumstances of the case in setting the level of the protective award.

  • Type:
    FAQs

    How can a successful claimant enforce a tribunal award if the employer fails to pay?

  • Type:
    FAQs

    What are the potential consequences if an employer fails to pay compensation awarded to a successful tribunal claimant?

  • Type:
    Employment law cases

    Case round-up

    Richard Ryan, associate, Helen Ward, associate, and Tori O'Neil, trainee solicitor, Addleshaw Goddard, detail the latest rulings.

  • Type:
    Quick reference

    Compensation - detrimental treatment

    A table summarising the compensation payable where an employee has been subjected to detrimental treatment.

  • Date:
    1 April 2010
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    Aziz v First Division Association (FDA)

    The Court of Appeal has held that, where a claimant is alleging that separate incidents form one continuous act for the purposes of extending the normal time limit within which to bring a claim for racial discrimination, a relevant but not conclusive factor is whether the same individuals or different individuals were involved in the separate incidents.

  • Date:
    31 March 2010
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    Taylor v XLN Telecom Ltd and others

    The Employment Appeal Tribunal has held that employees, who successfully claim discrimination, are entitled to be compensated for any injury to health or injury to feelings caused by the act complained of, even if they were unaware that the act complained of was discriminatory.

  • Date:
    24 February 2010
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    Race discrimination: Polkey principle applies to compensation for dismissal

    In Chagger v Abbey National plc and another [2009] EWCA Civ 1202 CA, the Court of Appeal confirmed that employment tribunals should ask a Polkey-type question when considering loss of earnings flowing from a discriminatory dismissal. The Court also ruled that, in appropriate cases, compensation for loss of earnings may include an element of "stigma" loss.

  • Date:
    26 January 2010
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    Compensation for injury to feelings: EAT increases Vento compensation in line with inflation

    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.

  • Date:
    9 December 2009
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    Unfair dismissal: Norton Tool principle does not apply to unfair constructive dismissal

    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.