The employee challenged the Employment Tribunal’s finding, upheld by the EAT, that he had not acted reasonably in refusing an offer of re-employment made by his employer.
Held: The appeal failed. Potter LJ said: ‘As was made clear in the Judgment of the EAT, (at paragraph 64) the various authorities referred to by the Tribunal (see paragraph 22 and 23 above) and Payzu -v- Saunders are apt to establish the following principles which (in a form which I have somewhat recast) were accepted as common ground between the parties. (i) It was the duty of Mr Wilding to act in mitigation of his loss as a reasonable man unaffected by the hope of compensation from BT as his former employer; (ii) the onus was on BT as the wrongdoer to show that Mr Wilding had failed in his duty to mitigate his loss by unreasonably refusing the offer of re-employment; (iii) the test of unreasonableness is an objective one based on the totality of the evidence; (iv) in applying that test, the circumstances in which the offer was made and refused, the attitude of BT, the way in which Mr Wilding had been treated and all the surrounding circumstances should be taken into account; and (v) the court or tribunal deciding the issue must not be too stringent in its expectations of the injured party. I would add under (iv) that the circumstances to be taken into account included the state of mind of Mr Wilding.’
Judges:
Lord Justice Brooke, Potter LJ
Citations:
[2002] EWCA Civ 349
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Wilding v British Telecom Plc EAT 2-Apr-2001
EAT Disability Discrimination – Compensation . .
Cited – Payzu Limited v Saunders CA 1919
The innocent plaintiff buyers had been found to have failed to mitigate their damages because they had not accepted an offer from the defendant sellers (who were in breach of contract) to supply goods on cash terms, the contract having originally . .
Cited by:
Cited – F and G Cleaners v Saddington and Others EAT 16-Aug-2012
EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Mitigation of loss
The Claimants worked for Respondent 1 who supplied window cleaning services under contract to a local authority. The contract was subject to a re-tendering process; . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment, Discrimination, Damages
Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.170001
