United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

BAILII case number: [1996] UKEAT 1320_95_2503

Appeal No. EAT/1320/95

EMPOLYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL

58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

At the Tribunal

On 25 March 1996

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE HOLLAND

MISS J W COLLERSON

MR S M SPRINGER MBE

---

MISS D CLARK          APPELLANT

THE ROYAL OVERSEAS LEAGUE          RESPONDENTS

---

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised


 


---

APPEARANCES

For the Appellant MS BOOTH QC

(of Counsel)


 


MR JUSTICE HOLLAND: Miss Clark was an Applicant complaining of unfair dismissal who came before an Industrial Tribunal sitting at London (South) on 24 October 1995. In the result, the Industrial Tribunal ruled against her, finding that the Respondent, The Royal Overseas League, had unfairly dismissed her, but making neither a basic nor a compensatory award.

We have had the advantage first of reading the grounds of appeal drafted (we may say in parenthesis, well drafted) by Miss Clark. We have also had the considerable advantage of having Miss Booth present her case this morning and in the result, we are entirely satisfied that this matter should go forward for a full hearing with the Respondent represented.

The essential passage which has caught our eye is the passage in paragraph 13 of the extended reasons, which is in the following terms:

"13. ... (b) However, we also cannot make a compensatory award, because any loss which Miss Clark is now suffering arises from the fact that she gave up her job with the Cancer Research Association, although we entirely accept that she did so for reason which seemed good to her at the time. But in those circumstances, we are afraid that we cannot make her a compensatory award either. ..."

We remind ourselves that at that stage the Industrial Tribunal was seeking to apply Section 74(4):

"74(4) In ascertaining the said loss the tribunal shall apply the same rule concerning the duty of a person to mitigate his loss as applies to damages recoverable under the common law of England and Wales or of Scotland, as the case may be."

We are quite satisfied that Miss Clark has an arguable point, namely as to whether, in making that very brief finding, the Industrial Tribunal was applying Section 74(4) appropriately.

For that reason, we have reached the decision already recorded in this judgment.