J P Ticktum & Shranks Solicitors v Bannister [2007] UKEAT 0120_07_0507 (5 July 2007)

J P Ticktum & Shranks Solicitors v Bannister [2007] UKEAT 0120_07_0507 (5 July 2007)

The Tribunal's reasons, when read with their subsequent clarifications, were sufficient to explain their findings on future loss and mitigation; the claimant's efforts to find work in South London were adequate to discharge her duty to mitigate, and the speculative nature of future loss justified the Tribunal's approach.

Citation
[2007] UKEAT 0120_07_0507
Parties
Appellant/respondent Below: Jeremy Ticktum trading as Shranks Solicitors; Respondent/claimant Below: Heather Bannister
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
05 July 2007
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal Tribunal (eat) Appeal / Appeal From Employment Tribunal Judgment on Compensation for Unfair Dismissal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal dismissed; no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Compensation, Mitigation of Loss, Future Loss of Earnings, Disability Discrimination
Employment Law Unfair Dismissal Compensation Mitigation of Loss Future Loss of Earnings Disability Discrimination

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 2 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jeremy Ticktum trading as Shranks Solicitors

Appellant/respondent Below

Heather Bannister

Respondent/claimant Below

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal Tribunal (eat) Appeal / Appeal From Employment Tribunal Judgment on Compensation for Unfair Dismissal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Employment Tribunal gave sufficient reasons for awarding six months future loss of earnings to the claimant
  2. 2 Whether the Tribunal gave sufficient reasons for finding the claimant had mitigated her loss

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal's reasons, when read with their subsequent clarifications, were sufficient to explain their findings on future loss and mitigation; the claimant's efforts to find work in South London were adequate to discharge her duty to mitigate, and the speculative nature of future loss justified the Tribunal's approach.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal dismissed; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Cross-appeal dismissed