Jason Elliott was called to the Bar of Northern Ireland in 2013 and is the Associate Head of School of Law at Ulster University. As a practising barrister, he has developed a largely civil practice representing individuals, companies and public bodies in litigation. This covers a wide range of areas including personal injuries, wills and employment law. In terms of employment law, he has represented both applicants and respondents in the Industrial Tribunal. At Ulster University, Jason lectures extensively on the civil areas of practise such as Equity and Trusts and delivers employment law lectures for both undergraduate and postgraduate students.
Background:
The claimant, a lecturer at the respondent university, was found to have been unfairly dismissed. The claimant sought a reinstatement order and this was granted by the Tribunal. The issue was that the respondent refused to reinstate the claimant. Therefore the Tribunal awarded:
- Basic Award - £11,025
- Compensatory Award - £67,469.78; and
- Additional Award - £27,300
The respondent argued that the compensatory award should have been capped at one year’s gross pay. This should have taken into account the compensatory award and the additional award. The respondent appealed this decision.
Outcome:
The EAT allowed the appeal. It was held that in failing to comply with the reinstatement order any sums that would have been due would then fall within the compensatory award which the claimant was entitled to. The EAT did note that the statutory cap may be adjusted in cases where there is a failure to comply with an order for reinstatement and that a compensatory award was being made with an additional award. Here, though, the amount ordered exceeded the statutory cap for a compensatory award. The Tribunal had ignored the additional award when looking at the cap. The adjustment to the cap can only be made ‘to the extent necessary’. The total sum came to £90,832 which was considerably more than the statutory cap. In terms of adjustment to the cap it is only where the aggregated total fell short of the statutory sum that it would be necessary for the statutory limit otherwise imposed on the compensation award to be exceeded.
Practical Guidance for Employers:
This case outlines the possible outcomes arising from the refusal to abide by a reinstatement order. It does allow for an additional award to be made but the EAT is clearly demonstrating here that there should not be an award given in excess of the statutory cap arising. There is scope within the legislation for an adjustment to the cap but that it only be made to the extent necessary and this was not the case here. This should be considered when faced with a claimant who wishes to be reinstated and is successful on the substance of their claim.
https://www.gov.uk/employment-appeal-tribunal-decisions/university-of-huddersfield-v-mr-j-duxbury-2023-eat-72
Continue reading
We help hundreds of people like you understand how the latest changes in employment law impact your business.
Please log in to view the full article.
What you'll get:
- Help understand the ramifications of each important case from NI, GB and Europe
- Ensure your organisation's policies and procedures are fully compliant with NI law
- 24/7 access to all the content in the Legal Island Vault for research case law and HR issues
- Receive free preliminary advice on workplace issues from the employment team
Already a subscriber? Log in now or start a free trial
