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 view, inconsistent with that approach to introduce principles of foreseeability or remoteness in the technical sense in which those concepts apply in other legal contexts. What an industrial tribunal is required to do, in our view, is to apply the statutory test as a whole and assess what is just and equitable having regard to the loss so far as attributable to the employer.’
 SLT 734,  IRLR 693, 1999 SC 57
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 – Flexible Ducting Ltd v George Donald Stirling EAT 25-Sep-2001
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 . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Dignity Funerals Limited v Bruce OHCS 14-Oct-2004
The employee was found to have been unfairly dismissed. The employer appealed the compensatory award which was based on his depressive illness. They said that the illness predated the dismissal.
Held: The EAT’s decision was set aside. In . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.180921