The Tribunal had been entitled to find on the evidence that an employee unfairly dismissed by reason of sex would have been fairly dismissed for misconduct six months later in any event because of her antagonistic and intransigent attitude. The court considered whether damages for unfair dismissal could include an element of compensation for injured feelings: ‘Compensation for unfair dismissal is provided for in Chapter II of the Employment Rights Act 1996. Section 112 provides that compensation should be calculated according to ss118-127A. There is no compensation for injury to feelings or the manner or dismissal, unless that gives rise to financial loss.’
Potter LJ said: ‘An Industrial Tribunal must award such compensation as is ‘just and equitable’. If the facts are such that an Industrial Tribunal, while finding that an employee/applicant has been dismissed unfairly (whether substantively or procedurally), concludes that, but for the dismissal, the applicant would have been bound soon thereafter to be dismissed (fairly) by reason of some course of conduct or characteristic attitude which the employer reasonably regards as unacceptable but which the employee cannot or will not moderate, then it is just and equitable that compensation for the unfair dismissal should be awarded on that basis.’
Judges:
Potter LJ
Citations:
[2001] EWCA Civ 701, [2001] IRLR 615, [2001] Emp LR 711
Links:
Statutes:
Employment Rights Act 1996 112
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
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 . .
Appeal from – Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council v O’Donoghue EAT 20-Apr-1999
. .
Mentioned – British Labour Pump Co Ltd v Byrne EAT 1979
The respondent had been dismissed for misconduct on the morning of the day on which he was dismissed. There had been previous misbehaviour but the industrial tribunal held that the case had to be determined on the basis of what had happened on that . .
See Also – Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council v O’Donoghue EAT 21-Jan-2000
. .
See Also – O’Donoghue v Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council EAT 17-May-2000
. .
Cited by:
Cited – Scott v London Borough of Hillingdon CA 18-Dec-2001
The claimant’s claim for race discrimination had been dismissed on appeal by the EAT. He now appealed to restore the judgement of the employment tribunal. He had begun an action against his employer, and then unsuccessfully applied for employment . .
Cited – Software 2000 Ltd v Andrews etc EAT 17-Jan-2007
EAT Four employees successfully established before the Employment Tribunal that they had been unfairly dismissed for redundancy. The Tribunal found that there had been procedural defects. In particular the . .
Cited – Ward v Ashkenazi CA 2-Feb-2011
The claimant had been awarded damages after being found to have been unfairly dismissed for an automatically unfair reason in requesting written particulars of her employment. The EAT had awarded a 50% uplift for non-compliance with statutory . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment, Damages
Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.135456
