Court of Appeal
HELD: (1) The size of the award was a relevant factor that a tribunal should have regard to when considering whether to increase compensation under s.31(3), Abbey National Plc v Chagger (2009) EWCA Civ 1202, (2010) ICR 397 applied. (2) The intention behind s.31(3) was that a tribunal was enjoined to start at a 10 per cent uplift and it then had to consider whether it was just and equitable on the particular circumstances to increase that percentage. An increase to the maximum of 50 per cent should be very rare indeed and given only in the most egregious of cases. The fact that an employer had ignored procedures altogether would not justify an increase to the maximum although it would often justify some increase beyond 10 per cent (see paras 25, 26 of judgment). Once a tribunal had fixed on an appropriate uplift by focusing on the nature and gravity of the breach, only then should it consider how much that involved in money terms. It must not be disproportionate but there was no simple formula for determining that. However, the law set its face against sums that would not command the respect of the public and very large payments for procedural wrongdoings were at risk of doing that. It was relevant to have regard to the sums the courts were willing to award for injury to feelings and for aggravated damages. Save in very exceptional circumstances, most members of the public would view with some concern additional payments following an uplift for purely procedural failings which exceeded the maximum payable for injured feelings (see paras 27, 28). In the instant case, the breaches did not warrant an uplift of 50 per cent. Disregarding the size of the award, the appropriate uplift was in the region of 30 per cent. However, that percentage then had to be translated into money terms and reconsidered. Even an uplift of 30 per cent resulted in a figure that was outside the permissible range. Whilst the court might not have been inclined to reduce the figure quite as far as the EAT did, that figure of 10 per cent was not outside the range legitimately open to it given the particular award. The final uplift figure could be determined once the amount of compensation had been calculated. (3) The uplift had to relate to the unfair dismissal claim in respect of which the statutory procedures were infringed. The uplift could plainly not be applied to the injury to feelings award, or the loss resulting from the failure to promote C from the date promotion would have occurred until the dismissal itself. Further, following dismissal, the continuing loss resulting from the failure to promote could not be attributable to the dismissal itself; it still had its roots in the discriminatory act rather than the dismissal. The EAT ought to have applied the uplift only to the loss referrable to the act of dismissal itself (see paras 38-45).
Appeals allowed in part.
 EWCA Civ 545; LTL 11/5/2011
"The ‘capable, efficient, and helpful’ clerks’ room provides ‘a service-orientated approach and goes above and beyond in trying to ensure you have the right barrister for the job ; you have the utmost confidence in the clerking”
"An extremely approachable set of chambers which puts a premium on service delivery"
Nicola Newbegin will be speaking at the ARDL Webinar on “Dual qualified registrants, double jeopardy and case management in multiple…
Our team of independent investigators are experts in their field and well placed to help your organisation navigate an internal…View More