Bari v Aspen Window Group Ltd

An employee can be dismissed only once on a single occasion, even where the dismissal is alleged to have occurred on several grounds. Compensation for the dismissal cannot be recovered twice. Where an employee has already received full compensation for the dismissal through a discrimination claim, a further challenge to a qualifying-period bar on ordinary unfair dismissal may serve no useful purpose. An appeal directed to obtaining no additional practical outcome will be dismissed.

The appellant, who had been employed for one week, brought claims arising from the termination of his employment. The Employment Tribunal held that it had jurisdiction over claims alleging dismissal for asserting a statutory right and racial discrimination, but not over an ordinary unfair dismissal claim because the appellant had not completed the required period of employment under Employment Relations Act 1996, section 108(1).

The Employment Appeal Tribunal refused to admit further statistical evidence and dismissed the relevant appeal. Meanwhile, a later Employment Tribunal found racial discrimination, awarded compensation for injury to feelings and loss of wages, and dismissed the statutory-right claim. The question before the Court of Appeal was whether the challenge to the one-year bar could usefully continue.

1. Appeal dismissed. The appellant had already obtained compensation for the dismissal through the successful racial-discrimination claim. The award included compensation for loss of wages caused by the dismissal, together with separate compensation for the indignity of the discriminatory circumstances.
2. A person can be dismissed only once on a single occasion, even if the dismissal is alleged to have occurred on more than one ground. The employee can therefore be compensated only once for the dismissal.
3. The challenge to the legality in European Union law of section 108(1) of the Employment Relations Act 1996 could not usefully be pursued because it could produce no outcome not already achieved by the other proceedings. The Court therefore dismissed the appeal without determining the wider questions concerning disparate impact, Article 119, or disapplication of primary legislation.
4. Lord Justice Kennedy agreed with Lord Justice Sedley’s reasoning. The appeal was dismissed with costs.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): dismissed the appeal with costs.
• Employment Appeal Tribunal: on 1 December 2000 refused to admit further statistical evidence and refused to allow the appeal on the qualifying-period issue to proceed to a full hearing.
• Employment Tribunal: held that the ordinary unfair dismissal claim was barred because the appellant had been employed for less than one year. A later tribunal found racial discrimination and awarded £1,000 for injury to feelings and £546 for loss of wages.