What a claim is worth and who pays for it: injury to feelings, aggravated damages, career loss, costs and the arithmetic behind a settlement figure.
The EAT remits a £5,000 aggravated damages award because the tribunal identified conduct it disliked without finding what additional injury it caused. HHJ Tayler restates the three requirements: an additional factor, an increased injury, and the causal link between them.
The Court of Appeal holds in ABC v Huntercombe that a transferor's vicarious liability to a third party does not pass under regulation 4(2)(a) of TUPE. Liability travels with the victim's contract, not the tortfeasor's, and the court's weakest reason is the one practitioners will hear most.
Aristotle's account of anger has three parts and Nussbaum keeps only one. The Employment Rights Act 1996 and the Equality Act 2010 divide the same ground: five provisions cut a remedy for what the claimant did about the wrong or why the claimant spoke, the declaration marks the wrong and pays nothing, and the one remedy whose whole content was that it should not happen again was narrowed by the Deregulation Act 2015.
The EAT in Edward holds that rule 62 reaches terms agreed in writing at any time, and survives s.144 of the Equality Act — but not a party who has told the tribunal, before the order is made, that he has changed his mind.
Legal costs are recoverable as costs or not at all — except when they are damages. Where the rule comes from, the three exceptions Halsbury recognises, and what happened when an employment tribunal met the argument in Meade.
A new Hart study from Sarah Fraser Butlin KC, Catherine Barnard and Maayan Menashe diagnoses what is wrong with the Employment Tribunal — and proposes a family-law-inflected reframe of the whole system, with a three-track adjudication structure, an Employment Resolution Service and an end to the formal grievance procedure as a precondition to litigation.
Employment tribunal proceedings are a repeated game. Axelrod's tournament proved that cooperative strategies outperform aggressive ones over the long run — and the implications for practitioners facing a pressure campaign from a well-resourced opponent are more concrete than you might expect.
In KJ v British Council, the EAT has held that a tribunal cannot apply a Chagger deduction to discrimination compensation without first asking whether the factors relied on were themselves products of the discrimination. A 35% reduction was overturned because the tribunal failed to construct a proper counterfactual.
In game theory, the saddlepoint is the equilibrium where settlement becomes rational. In employment litigation, reaching it requires information that can only be acquired by spending the money the settlement was supposed to save.
A masterclass in causation: HHJ Simon Auerbach's tribute to Sir Patrick Elias clarifies the 'true reason' for dismissal, the 'reasons why' test in discrimination, and the critical distinction between counterfactual and predictive remedy assessments.
Analysing the Court of Appeal's reluctant ruling in Rice v Wicked Vision Ltd, which confirms that whistleblowing claimants can pursue dual claims for unfair dismissal and detriment, following the controversial Timis v Osipov precedent.
In Chaudhry v Paperchase Products Ltd and anor, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has confirmed that an employee whose employer becomes insolvent cannot recover a basic award for unfair dismissal from the Secretary of State unless an Employment Tribunal has actually determined the claim and made such an award.
How to guess your award (without paying lawyers). A look at the Vento bands and Schedule of Loss calculations.
Remedies & Compensation · Costs & Wasted Costs Orders in the Employment Tribunal · Remedies & Injury to Feelings (Vento)