The Employment Tribunal in this case found that the Claimant’s suspension was not an unlawful act but was the most proximate cause of her depression and triggered that depression.

The Respondent appealed against an award for personal injury on the basis that the Employment Tribunal was wrong to make such an award in the absence of expert medical evidence, which was necessary to establish both causation and quantum of this claim which are difficult issues to disentangle.  The Respondent argued that in a low-value case, cost and proportionality issues may drive parties and tribunals to deal with such issues without medical evidence but in all other cases medical evidence must be obtained before such an award can be made.  Not so, according to the EAT - it may be advisable to have medical expert evidence but no such legal principle applies.

The Respondent also contended that the Employment Tribunal’s starting point for the personal injury award was inflated and erroneously characterised the psychiatric injury as “moderately severe” (with a bracket of £15,000-£44,000) within the terms of the Judicial College Guidelines, 12th edition, rather than as “moderate” (with a bracket of £4,700-£15,400).  This led to an award that overlapped with the injury to feelings award and was manifestly excessive. This argument was also rejected.

Although it is advisable for claimants to obtain medical evidence (especially in cases involving psychiatric injury which can give rise to difficult questions of causation and quantification) and failure to produce medical evidence risks a lower award than might otherwise be made, or no award being made at all, the Employment Appeal Tribunal rejected the argument that a personal injury award cannot be made in the absence of expert medical evidence in every case bar those of low-value.  There is no such principle of law.  The same is true of pecuniary loss awards in unfair dismissal cases.

Importantly, the EAT found there was ample evidence to support that conclusion in the Occupational Health reports and the evidence of the Claimant and her witness that the suspension and illness were linked.

"The assessment of general damages for personal injury is not a science.  It is a matter of fact to be determined by a tribunal and not susceptible to a successful appeal unless the Employment Tribunal is shown to have made an error of principle or to have arrived at a figure that is manifestly too high or too low so as to be capable of being treated as perverse.  Once it is accepted, as we do, that the Tribunal was entitled to characterise this injury as moderately severe with a bracket of £15,000-£44,000, we can see no error of law or principle in the Tribunal’s figure of £10,000 for personal injury, particularly when taken together with the injury to feelings award, producing, in effect, a total general damages award of £25,000.  This falls squarely within that bracket.  Having regard to the comparable awards to which Ms Moss has taken us and which were relied on by the Tribunal below, we consider that the award is entirely within the range of possible awards for a depressive illness of the severity and duration suffered by the Claimant.  Indeed, we go further.  On its own we consider that the award of £10,000 is on the low side.  However, we are satisfied that is because the Tribunal also made an award for injury to feelings and was conscious of the potential for overlap and double recovery."

Similar logic applies to unfair dismissal awards of compensation:

"Tribunals are expected to deal with compensation for unfair dismissal in a rough and ready way, applying common sense and their best judgment to what is just and equitable in the particular case.  The task involves an inevitable degree of speculation.  A tribunal must make a best assessment of the stage at which an individual will regain suitable alternative employment.  Common sense comes into play, and tribunals can be expected to make an assessment of realistic chances in such cases.  They do so on the basis of all the evidence available and do not require medical evidence to make that assessment.  Provided a tribunal takes account of all relevant evidence as to the realistic prospects of an individual’s chances of obtaining alternative employment in the future having regard to the vagaries of life, it will apply the law correctly."
http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2016/0013_16_1310.html