Site icon swarb.co.uk

Fox v British Airways Plc: EAT 30 Jul 2012

dox_baEAT2012

EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL
JURISDICTIONAL POINTS
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
A former employee died within days of being dismissed, it was said both unfairly, and by because of discrimination. He had enjoyed the right to death-in-service benefit whilst in employment. The ET, rejecting an argument that the loss was real loss of substance to the deceased, and considering it was in reality a benefit to the dependents, held that a sum of around andpound;350 akin to the conventional award for loss of statutory rights should be awarded (if liability were made out). The deceased’s father appealed against the assessment of quantum.
The father had initially issued proceedings without first obtaining appointment as a person authorised to bring them by application to the ET by appointment under s. 206(4) ERA 1996 – instead he included such an application in the body of his ET1. The EJ declined to apply Court of Appeal common-law authority to the effect that proceedings brought without authorisation were a nullity and could not retrospectively be validated, though purporting to take a literal approach to the wording of s.206; and regarded the claims as being in time; but in the alternative held that duplicate proceedings brought within a reasonable time of the father realising that an ET had not (yet) dealt with his application for appointment, and that there might be a problem with his entitlement to bring them, had been brought within time.
Held that the EJ was in error in assessing loss in the way he did: it was a real loss, which might normally be compensated for by payment of an appropriate premium to ensure death cover in the amount contracted for in employment, but since in the circumstances it was not argued that there should have been mitigation by obtaining such a policy, the loss was prima facie the loss of the full sum payable on death. The EJ was also wrong not to have held the initial proceedings a nullity incapable of retrospective validation. However, his alternative conclusion was open to him. The ET thus had jurisdiction.

Langstaff J P
[2012] UKEAT 0033 – 12 – 3007
Bailii
England and Wales

Employment, Damages

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.463349

Exit mobile version