Brown v J & J Baxter (t/a Careham Hall) [2010] UKEAT 0354_09_0707 (7 July 2010)

Brown v J & J Baxter (t/a Careham Hall) [2010] UKEAT 0354_09_0707 (7 July 2010)

The Tribunal acted within its broad discretion in awarding a 30% uplift for failure to follow statutory procedures, as there was no finding of wilful or blatant disregard. Compensation for stigma damages was not within the Tribunal's jurisdiction because the loss of new employment was not a consequence of the dismissal but of the reference and POVA referral, which would have occurred even without dismissal.

Citation
[2010] UKEAT 0354_09_0707
Parties
Appellant/claimant: Emma Brown; Respondents/employer: Careham Hall (Respondents)
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
07 July 2010
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Appeal Against Employment Tribunal's Compensation Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Compensation, Statutory Disciplinary Procedures, Stigma Damages, Breach of Contract
Employment Law Unfair Dismissal Compensation Statutory Disciplinary Procedures Stigma Damages Breach of Contract

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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Emma Brown

Appellant/claimant

Careham Hall (Respondents)

Respondents/employer

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Appeal Against Employment Tribunal's Compensation Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 30% uplift for failure to follow statutory disciplinary procedures was sufficient or should have been the maximum 50%
  2. 2 Whether compensation for 'stigma damages' following an adverse reference was within the Tribunal's jurisdiction

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal acted within its broad discretion in awarding a 30% uplift for failure to follow statutory procedures, as there was no finding of wilful or blatant disregard. Compensation for stigma damages was not within the Tribunal's jurisdiction because the loss of new employment was not a consequence of the dismissal but of the reference and POVA referral, which would have occurred even without dismissal.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal on both grounds is dismissed.
  • The Respondents' cross-appeal is dismissed.