Jones v Lingfield Leisure Plc: CA 18 Jun 1998

The claimant had been unfairly dismissed but in addition to this employment she had also lost her earnings from a private practice as an aerobics teacher at the same facility where she was employed. She had been awarded damages for the employment loss, but not the rest.
Held: The court did not state as a proposition of law that no award could ever be made under Section 123 for loss of self-employed earnings or, at any rate, the loss of an opportunity to earn them. There could be a situation under a contract of employment where the opportunity to earn other money, using the employer’s facilities, in a self-employed capacity, could come within Section 123 when an award was quantified. However, on the facts of this case the Tribunal were entitled to hold on an application of Section 123 that the very large earnings as a self-employed person by an appellant employed for only one or two shifts a week were not within the terms of the section.
Lady Justice Butler-Sloss, Lord Justice Pill, The Lord Lloyd Of Berwick
[1998] EWCA Civ 1037
Employment Rights Act 1996 123
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedNorton 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 . .
CitedLeonard 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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 05 May 2021; Ref: scu.144516