The claimant had been awarded damages for race discrimination. The employer appealed.
Held: In a claim for damages under the 1976 Act, it was not necessary to show that the damage suffered was reasonably forseeable.
Pill LJ said: ‘I see no need to superimpose the requirement or prerequisite of reasonable foreseeability upon the statutory tort in order to achieve the balance of interests which the law of tort requires. It is sufficient if the damage flows directly and naturally from the wrong. While there is force in the submission that, to prevent multiplicity of claims and frivolous claims, a control mechanism beyond that of causation is needed, reliance upon the good sense of employment tribunals in finding the facts and reaching conclusions on them is a sufficient control mechanism, in my view. As a mechanism for protecting a defendant against damages which, on policy grounds, may appear too remote, a further control by way of a reasonable foreseeability test is neither appropriate nor necessary in present circumstances.’
Clarke LJ said: ‘In all the circumstances we agree with Pill LJ that there is no need to add a further requirement of reasonable foreseeability and that the robust good sense of employment tribunals can be relied upon to ensure that compensation is awarded only where there really is a causal link between the act of discrimination and the injury alleged. No such compensation will of course be payable where there has been a break in the chain of causation or where the claimant has failed to take reasonable steps to mitigate his loss.’
Judges:
Lord Justice Clarke Lord Justice Rix Lord Justice Pill
Citations:
[2004] EWCA Civ 2, Times 29-Jan-2004, [2004] IRLR 313, [2004] ICR 746
Links:
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Chagger v Abbey National Plc and Another CA 13-Nov-2009
The claimant appealed against the limitation of 2% placed on the uplift of his award of damages for having failed to comply with relevant dispute procedures. The tribunal had found exceptional reasons for reducing the uplift given the size of the . .
Cited – Jones and Another v Ruth and Another CA 12-Jul-2011
The parties were neighbours. The claimants succeeded in their assertion of trespass and nuisance in building works carried out by the defendant. The claimant appealed against the judge’s failure to award damages for harassment, saying that though . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment, Discrimination, Damages
Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.192055