The issue was the valuation of share options no longer exercisable by the claimant after dismissal. Any assessment involved unwelcome speculation, but the tribunal had recognised the need to take a broad approach. No error of law was shown in the ET decision, but both parties accepted that there had been errors. The employer complained that the tribunal had valued gains not losses. The arithmetical errors asserted by the claimant seemed correct. The only step the EAT could take was to remit the case to the same tribunal.
EAT Unfair Dismissal – Compensation
Judges:
The Honourable Lord Johnston
Citations:
EAT/423/01
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Norton Tool Co Ltd v Tewson NIRC 30-Oct-1972
(National Industrial Relations Court) The court was asked to calculate damages on a dismissal, and particularly as to whether the manner of the dismissal should affect the damages.
Held: The common law rules and authorities on wrongful . .
Cited – Leonard v Strathclyde Buses Ltd 1998
To receive a compensatory award, a claimant must provide proof of loss. Referring to Norton Tool, Lord Blofeld said: ‘The approach . . has, as we understand the position, governed the attitude of tribunals to compensation ever since. It is, in our . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment, Damages
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.168345