London Borough of Hackney v Sivanandan and Others: EAT 27 May 2011

Council and a charity both supplied members to a recruitment panel which victimised the Claimant – Tribunal makes a joint and several award, declining to ‘apportion’ liability to the Claimant as between the respondents
Held, upholding the Tribunal but for different reasons, that both were jointly and severally liable for the loss caused and that the Tribunal had no power to conduct such apportionment – Prison Service v Johnson (aka Armitage) [1997] ICR 275 doubted and dicta in Way v Crouch [2005] ICR 1362 not followed – In particular, the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978 affords no basis for apportionment of the liability of ‘concurrent discriminators’ as between them and the claimant (as opposed to determining contribution as between themselves)
(1) No error of law in the Tribunal’s award of andpound;15,000 for injury to feelings
(2) Tribunal had wrongly regarded itself as precluded by Deane v London Borough of Ealing from making an award of exemplary damages; but there was in fact no basis in the Council’s conduct for such an award

Underhill P J
[2011] UKEAT 0075 – 10 – 2705
Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978
England and Wales
Dicta not followedWay v Intro-Gate Chemicals Ltd and Crouch EAT 3-Jun-2005
EAT Sex Discrimination – The main issue in this appeal was whether in a sex discrimination case an Employment Tribunal has the power to make an award of compensation on a joint and several basis so that each . .
DoubtedArmitage Marsden and HM Prison Service v Johnson EAT 1997
The tribunal set out the relevant principles for assessing awards for injury to feelings for unlawful discrimination. The principles are: ‘(1) Awards for injury to feelings are compensatory. They should be just to both parties. They should . .
CitedBarker v Corus (UK) Plc HL 3-May-2006
The claimants sought damages after contracting meselothemia working for the defendants. The defendants argued that the claimants had possibly contracted the disease at any one or more different places. The Fairchild case set up an exception to the . .
CitedYashin Essa v Laing Ltd EAT 17-Feb-2003
The claimant appealed against the level of damages awarded on his claim for race discrimination on the basis that he had not shown that his hurt feelings were not shown to have been reasonably forseeable.
Held: The tribunal had erred. It was . .
See AlsoSivanandan v Hackney Action for Racial Equality (Hare) EAT 20-Oct-1999
EAT Procedural Issues – Employment Tribunal . .
See AlsoSivanandan v Hackney Action for Race Equality (Hare) EAT 1-Feb-2001
. .
See AlsoSivanandan v Hackney Action for Racial Equality Executive Committee CA 25-Jan-2002
. .
See AlsoSivanandan v Hackney Action for Racial Equality and others EAT 18-Nov-2003
EAT Race Discrimination – Aiding and abetting . .
See AlsoSivanandan v Hackney Action for Racial Equality etc EAT 6-Jul-2004
EAT Disability Discrimination – Reasonable adjustments – Practice and Procedure – Disclosure.
EAT Practice and Procedure – Disclosure. . .

Cited by:
CitedSunderland City Council v Brennan and Others EAT 2-May-2012
(1) An employment tribunal has no jurisdiction to determine claims for contribution under the Civil Liability . .
CitedBungay and Others v Saini and Others EAT 27-Sep-2011
Vicarious liability
Post employment
The Appellants were members of the board of a Centre. As a result of decisions of the Employment Tribunal and the Employment Appeal . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination, Damages

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.440248