Latest in Employment Law>Case Law>Niekrash v South London Healthcare NHS Trust [2012] UKEAT/0252/11/JOJ
Niekrash v South London Healthcare NHS Trust [2012] UKEAT/0252/11/JOJ
Published on: 09/03/2012
Article Authors
The main content of this article was provided by the following authors.
Background
This was an appeal against the EAT‟s refusal to make an award of aggravated damages after the claimant was found to have suffered detriment after being excluded from his work as a hospital consultant urologist The appeal was dismissed.The claimant raised complaints and concerns that amounted to a series of protected disclosures for the purpose of the whistleblowing provisions of the ERA 1996. It was common ground that he had acted in good faith in making these disclosures. He was awarded sums for non-pecuniary losses and loss of income, but the Tribunal rejected the claims for aggravated and exemplary damages. The claimant appealed.The EAT rejected his appeal, saying that the ET was only required to consider such factors in support of the claim for aggravated damages as were argued before it, and not to tr awl through the evidence to consider points not made to it in argument. In any event, the EAT had correctly applied Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis v Shaw.http://bit.ly/zBMtle
Continue reading
We help hundreds of people like you understand how the latest changes in employment law impact your business.
Already a subscriber?
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
Disclaimer
The information in this article is provided as part of Legal Island's Employment Law Hub. We regret we are not able to respond to requests for specific legal or HR queries and recommend that professional advice is obtained before relying on information supplied anywhere within this article.
This article is correct at 09/03/2012
Recent Case Law
Morais v Ryanair DAC [2025]
21/01/2025
B (Trading as C) v A [2025]
21/01/2025
Duployen v Whyte & Mackay Ltd [2025]
14/01/2025
Q&A
How to handle it
Legal Island’s LMS, licensed to you
Imagine your staff having 24/7 access to a centralised training platform, tailored to your organisation’s brand and staff training needs, with unlimited users.
Learn more →
