The appellant worked as a project manager for the Shrewsbury and Telford Hospitals NHS Trust. He secured the position through an agency on a temporary basis with a view to permanency. Two months later he was dismissed. He argued the termination of his employment was because he had made a protected disclosure, namely, an attempt to urge the Trust to alert the previous occupiers of the property it owned that they may have been exposed to asbestos.

The appellant claimed compensation for loss of earnings up to his anticipated retirement date in 2022, relying on the indication that he would not be offered a permanent position in the future. The appellant alleged he had been unable to obtain employment in his respective field owing to the dismissal, his inability to provide a satisfactory reference to prospective employers, his decision to take a claim against the Trust and the fact that he had been out of work for some time rendering his skillset obsolete. The appellant informed the tribunal that he had actively sought employment and had applied for approximately 600 vacancies but to no avail.

The appellant was awarded damages in the sum of £54,126, including £33,976 for loss of earnings, £15,150 for injury to feelings and £5,000 by way of aggravated damages. His appeal related solely to the amount awarded for loss of earnings. This figure was calculated by reference to the date the appellant would have been engaged until, i.e. November 2013, but not beyond.

In the Employment Appeal Tribunal, counsel submitted it was incumbent for the tribunal to consider the loss the appellant had suffered after November 2013, applying the decision in Chagger v Abbey National plc [2010] ICR 397, even if such a claim was not expressly made out.

The Chagger decision emphasised that the period an employee would have worked for the respondent employer (but for the dismissal) did not represent an automatic cut-off in assessing compensation. It also established a claimant could seek compensation for being placed at a disadvantage in the labour market and for ‘stigma loss’, specifically in this case, the stigma associated with the circumstances in which the appellant was dismissed and his consequent claim against the Trust. The tribunal was provided with “very explicit evidence that he was suffering a loss extending into the indefinite, and probably long-term, future” due to the stigma associated with his dismissal and subsequent claim.

This is noteworthy as the employment tribunal deemed the consequences of his dismissal “career-ending” when first considering the heads of claim. The Court of Appeal concluded the tribunal should have considered whether the appellant had a claim in respect of his loss after November 2013 (which might include stigma loss) and ordered the case to be remitted to the tribunal for consideration.
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2017/882.html