Site icon swarb.co.uk

Mining Supplies (Longwall) Limited v Baker: EAT 1988

The unfairness of the Claimant’s dismissal lay in the employer’s failure to consult with him over his impending redundancy before dismissing him. Had they done so, the result would have been the same but dismissal would have been deferred for a short time.
Held: If a proper procedure would have taken some time to go through and the result would have been the same, it would be just and equitable to award compensation during the period of employment up to the date of the putative dismissal. The loss during the notional consultation period was recoverable as a Head of Loss within the compensatory award.

Judges:

Wood P

Citations:

[1988] ICR 676

Cited by:

AppliedCartwright v Kings College London EAT 30-Apr-2012
EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Polkey deduction
The Claimant was found (by the Court of Appeal) to have been unfairly dismissed by reason of failure to comply with Step 1 of the Standard Procedure. In all other . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Damages

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.460334

Exit mobile version