Sex Discrimination: Other Losses – 1. The Claimant suffered PTSD in and after 2008 as a result of a campaign of harassment by the Respondent. She had suffered a previous episode of PTSD which had ended in 2003. The Employment Tribunal reduced the whole of the Claimant’s award for losses caused by her PTSD by 12.5% on the basis that her previous PTSD ‘contributed to the causation’ of the latest episode. Appeal on this ground allowed and matter remitted to the same Employment Tribunal. The Employment Tribunal had not explained why it considered the previous episode of PTSD to have been a material cause of the present episode as opposed to merely rendering the Claimant vulnerable or susceptible to a further episode. In any event, the Employment Tribunal had not considered how the loss should be divided: a blanket reduction of 12.5% could not be justified.
2. The Employment Tribunal deducted housing benefit from the loss of earnings award. Appeal on this ground allowed. Housing benefit legislation enabled re-assessment and ‘claw-back’ of housing benefit in the event of an award in respect of loss of earnings from employment; in such circumstances it should not be deducted. Clenshaw v Tanner [2002] EWCA Civ 1848, Savage v Saxena [1998] IRLR 182 EAT considered.
3. The Employment Tribunal had dealt properly with an issue related to cardiologist’s fee. Appeal on this ground dismissed.
4. The Employment Tribunal had correctly included a Simmons v Castle [2013] 1 All ER 334 uplift. Beckford v London Borough of Southwark [2016] IRLR 178 followed. Cross-appeal dismissed.
David Richardson HHJ
[2016] UKEAT 0140 – 15 – 1807
Bailii
England and Wales
Employment, Damages
Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.567283