Geraghty v Forose [2023] NICA 2 (26 January 2023)

Geraghty v Forose [2023] NICA 2 (26 January 2023)

The Tribunal erred in law by double counting damages for injury to feelings and psychiatric injury, resulting in an excessive award. The correct approach is to make a single award for injury to feelings, including psychiatric injury, of £40,000, plus £6,000 for aggravated damages. The Tribunal's procedures regarding cross-examination and admission of similar fact evidence were lawful and appropriate given the ROSH order and the circumstances. Anonymity was properly revoked in light of open justice and the claimant's wishes.

Citation
[2023] NICA 2
Parties
Appellant/respondent: Eugene Geraghty; Respondent/claimant: Alona Forose
Jurisdiction
Northern Ireland
Judgment Date
26 January 2023
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Industrial Tribunal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; damages reduced
Legal Topics
Sexual Harassment, Anonymity Orders, Damages Assessment, Procedural Fairness, Admissibility of Similar Fact Evidence
Employment Law Equality Law Sex Discrimination Sexual Harassment Anonymity Orders Damages Assessment Procedural Fairness Admissibility of Similar Fact Evidence

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Eugene Geraghty

Appellant/respondent

Alona Forose

Respondent/claimant

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Industrial Tribunal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Tribunal erred in law by requiring cross-examination via the Employment Judge
  2. 2 Whether the Tribunal erred in law by admitting similar fact evidence from 2013
  3. 3 Whether the Tribunal erred in law in respect of quantum of damages, including double counting and excessiveness

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal erred in law by double counting damages for injury to feelings and psychiatric injury, resulting in an excessive award. The correct approach is to make a single award for injury to feelings, including psychiatric injury, of £40,000, plus £6,000 for aggravated damages. The Tribunal's procedures regarding cross-examination and admission of similar fact evidence were lawful and appropriate given the ROSH order and the circumstances. Anonymity was properly revoked in light of open justice and the claimant's wishes.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; damages reduced

Orders

  • Anonymity revoked; parties may be named
  • Total damages reduced to £46,000 (£40,000 for injury to feelings including psychiatric injury, £6,000 aggravated damages)