Miss H Kalaya v Wimbledon Broadway Specsavers Limited — 2019

The tribunal recorded that, by its liability judgment dated 31 May 2019, all of the claimant’s claims had been dismissed except her unfair dismissal claim, which was found well founded by majority. The 25 September 2019 hearing was therefore limited to remedy against Wimbledon Broadway Specsavers Limited. The claimant did not seek reinstatement or re-engagement.

The respondent accepted that the claimant was entitled to a basic award and did not argue for any reduction for conduct. The parties agreed the basic award at £1,769.60. They also agreed compensation for the short period between the end of employment on 4 April 2017 and the start of new employment on 6 April 2017, and the tribunal accepted the claimant’s figure of £178.96. The tribunal ordered payment of £1,946.56 in total and recorded that the Recoupment Regulations did not apply.

The tribunal rejected the claimant’s remaining heads of loss. It held that no award should be made for loss of statutory rights because she had obtained new employment and, by the hearing, had the same notice entitlement as before; it also allowed the respondent to withdraw any concession on that point. The claimant’s attempt to recover three months’ notice pay failed because she had not brought a wrongful dismissal claim and, in any event, earnings in the new job extinguished any such loss under the approach discussed in Norton Tool Co Ltd v Tewson and Stuart Peters Ltd v Bell.

The tribunal also rejected claims for continuing loss, loss for the first three days of the new job, career damage or stigma damages, medical treatment costs, and any ACAS uplift. It found that her new remuneration, including employer pension contributions and benefits, exceeded the value of her former package over the period considered to April 2020, with only the two days’ agreed loss remaining. For stigma and career advancement, it found no evidential basis for inferring that the dismissal or litigation affected her job prospects. For medical costs, it applied the principle in GAB Robins (UK) Ltd v Triggs and Eastwood v Magnox Electric Plc that the loss must flow from the dismissal itself, and found that the claimant’s condition did not do so. It therefore limited compensation to the agreed short-period loss and the basic award.