The Claimant was found to have been unfairly dismissed, and a re-engagement order was made in August 2018 which contained a formula for calculating the sum payable to the Claimant. The Claimant was not re-engaged, and at a subsequent remedy hearing in January he was awarded the sum of pounds 947,585.20, less tax and National Insurance. The ET rejected his claim for interest on the sum which would have been payable under the August 2018 re-engagement Order. The Claimant appealed against that finding.
The EAT rejected the appeal. It held that, although the re-engagement order contained an order to pay the Claimant a sum of money, that sum was conditional upon re-engagement having been complied with, or more accurately, ‘taking place’. ‘Non-compliance’ suggests a breach, when in reality an order for re-engagement can legitimately be ignored, on pain of specified consequences. The monetary part of the August 2018 order was, in the words of s115(2) ERA 1996, part of ‘the terms on which the re-engagement is to take place.’ As it did not take place, section 117 became engaged. This provides for distinct orders to be made if a claimant is not re-engaged. That order was duly made in January 2019, whereupon the 2018 Award fell away. Interest is not payable on a conditional award, when the condition fails.
Citations:
[2020] UKEAT 0208 – 19 – 0105,
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Employment
Updated: 01 December 2022; Ref: scu.661650
