Brown v Colt Technology Services Ltd [2018] UKEAT 0023_17_0406 (4 June 2018)

Brown v Colt Technology Services Ltd [2018] UKEAT 0023_17_0406 (4 June 2018)

The Tribunal was entitled to deduct only 50% of PHI payments from loss of earnings as the claimant contributed indirectly by foregoing salary for enhanced protection. However, the Tribunal erred in including redundancy and notice payments as losses when the claimant remains employed and may still be entitled to those sums; these must be deducted from the award. The Tribunal also erred in its approach to apportionment, which must be based on divisibility of harm as per Konczak. The finding that PHI payments might cease for reasons other than recovery was unsupported and should be deleted. The Tribunal's findings on period of recovery, future earnings, and risk of relapse were within its...

Citation
[2018] UKEAT 0023_17_0406
Parties
Respondent: Colt Technology Services Limited; Claimant: Mr J B Brown
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
04 June 2018
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Appeal and Cross Appeal From Employment Tribunal Remedies Judgment
Outcome
Appeal and cross-appeal both allowed in part.
Legal Topics
Disability Discrimination, Compensation, Reasonable Adjustments, Harassment, Apportionment of Loss, Permanent Health Insurance (phi), Redundancy, Notice Pay
Employment Law Discrimination Law Disability Discrimination Compensation Reasonable Adjustments Harassment Apportionment of Loss Permanent Health Insurance (phi) +2 more

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 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Colt Technology Services Limited

Respondent

Mr J B Brown

Claimant

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Appeal and Cross Appeal From Employment Tribunal Remedies Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether only 50% or 75% of PHI payments should be deducted from loss of earnings
  2. 2 Whether redundancy and notice payments should be included in compensation when claimant remains employed
  3. 3 Whether Tribunal erred in findings on cessation of PHI payments

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal was entitled to deduct only 50% of PHI payments from loss of earnings as the claimant contributed indirectly by foregoing salary for enhanced protection. However, the Tribunal erred in including redundancy and notice payments as losses when the claimant remains employed and may still be entitled to those sums; these must be deducted from the award. The Tribunal also erred in its approach to apportionment, which must be based on divisibility of harm as per Konczak. The finding that PHI payments might cease for reasons other than recovery was unsupported and should be deleted. The Tribunal's findings on period of recovery, future earnings, and risk of relapse were within its...

Court Disposition

Appeal and cross-appeal both allowed in part.

Orders

  • Deduction of only 50% of PHI payments from loss of earnings upheld.
  • Redundancy and notice payments to be deducted from overall award as claimant has not lost entitlement.