| The recent case of Corbett v Superdrug Stores | | | | acted within its powers and that the sum of |
| Plc [2006], addressed how to calculate the award | | | | £1,420 was awarded to reflect the fact |
| for an employment dispute. The employee had | | | | that she had lost her statutory rights. Considering |
| been working for the employer for more than 10 | | | | she had been employed for over 10 years, she |
| years when she was unfairly dismissed. She | | | | believed that she was entitled to 10 weeks notice |
| brought her case before the Employment Tribunal | | | | which would take a further 10 years to build up |
| and was awarded the sum of £1,420 for | | | | again, and therefore the award was justified. |
| loss of her statutory rights. However, the Tribunal | | | | The appeal was allowed. The EAT ruled that the |
| neglected to give an explanation as to why that | | | | Tribunal had failed to explain why it had reached |
| figure was reached. | | | | the conclusions which it had and had awarded |
| The main problem was that it was not made | | | | almost six times the usual amount of |
| clear how that figure was reached. There were | | | | compensation without an appropriate justification. |
| three potential reasons why the Tribunal awarded | | | | Although the employee had been employed for |
| her that amount: | | | | more than 10 years and would have accordingly |
| * It was compensation for the loss of protection | | | | been entitled to compensation for the loss of the |
| against unfair dismissal which it would have taken | | | | right to long notice, it was not appropriate to |
| the employee until 17 May 2006 to acquire; or | | | | calculate the amount by applying the simple |
| * It was compensation for the loss of the right to | | | | arithmetic multiplier which was relied upon by the |
| long notice which she had built up with the | | | | Tribunal. In addition, there were no submissions |
| employer and did not receive; or | | | | made by the employee before the Tribunal |
| * Both. | | | | regarding loss of right to long notice, and |
| The employer appealed against the amount | | | | therefore an award should not have been made in |
| awarded to the Employment Appeals Tribunal | | | | this regard. |
| ("EAT"). It argued that the Tribunal had erred in | | | | The EAT ruled that the award would be |
| awarding the sum of £1,420 for 'loss of | | | | recalculated by the same Tribunal after hearing |
| statutory rights'. The employer said that in making | | | | the appropriate submissions. |
| this award the Tribunal had used the conventional | | | | © RT COOPERS, 2006. This Briefing Note |
| label for compensation for loss of protection from | | | | does not provide a comprehensive or complete |
| unfair dismissal and such an award normally | | | | statement of the law relating to the issues |
| attracted an award of around £250. By | | | | discussed nor does it constitute legal advice. It is |
| awarding the employee £1,420 the Tribunal | | | | intended only to highlight general issues. Specialist |
| had wildly exceeded its discretion, perhaps due to | | | | legal advice should always be sought in relation to |
| undue sympathy for the employee. | | | | particular circumstances. |
| The employee submitted that the Tribunal had | | | | |