Konczak v BAE Systems (Operations) Ltd (Sex Discrimination : Other losses) [2014] UKEAT 0277_13_1301 (13 January 2014)

Konczak v BAE Systems (Operations) Ltd (Sex Discrimination : Other losses) [2014] UKEAT 0277_13_1301 (13 January 2014)

The Employment Tribunal erred in law by failing to consider whether the claimant's psychiatric injury had divisible causes and whether compensation should be apportioned, and by failing to provide a comprehensible account for the date chosen as the start of the claimant's failure to mitigate loss. Mathematical errors in calculation and interest were also identified. These matters are remitted to the same Employment Tribunal for reconsideration on the evidence already heard.

Citation
[2014] UKEAT 0277_13_1301
Parties
Appellant/respondent Below: BAE Systems (Operations) Ltd; Respondent/claimant Below: Marion Konczak
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
13 January 2014
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal Tribunal (eat) Appeal and Cross Appeal / Appeal From Employment Tribunal's Remedy Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; cross-appeal allowed in part; matters remitted to the same Employment Tribunal for reconsideration.
Legal Topics
Sex Discrimination, Disability Discrimination, Unfair Dismissal, Compensation, Mitigation of Loss, Apportionment of Damages
Employment Law Discrimination Law Sex Discrimination Disability Discrimination Unfair Dismissal Compensation Mitigation of Loss Apportionment of Damages

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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

BAE Systems (Operations) Ltd

Appellant/respondent Below

Marion Konczak

Respondent/claimant Below

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal Tribunal (eat) Appeal and Cross Appeal / Appeal From Employment Tribunal's Remedy Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Employment Tribunal erred by failing to consider if the claimant's psychiatric illness had divisible causes and whether compensation should be apportioned accordingly
  2. 2 Whether the Tribunal erred in its reasoning and explanation for the date chosen as the start of the claimant's failure to mitigate loss
  3. 3 Whether the Tribunal erred in its approach to pension loss calculation

Ratio Decidendi

The Employment Tribunal erred in law by failing to consider whether the claimant's psychiatric injury had divisible causes and whether compensation should be apportioned, and by failing to provide a comprehensible account for the date chosen as the start of the claimant's failure to mitigate loss. Mathematical errors in calculation and interest were also identified. These matters are remitted to the same Employment Tribunal for reconsideration on the evidence already heard.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; cross-appeal allowed in part; matters remitted to the same Employment Tribunal for reconsideration.

Orders

  • Remit to the same Employment Tribunal to consider whether the psychiatric injury is divisible and, if so, whether to apportion compensation.
  • Remit for reconsideration and explanation of the date chosen for failure to mitigate loss.