Vento v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police (Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police v Vento)

Compensation for future career loss depends on a reasoned assessment of the chances of continued employment absent discrimination. Statistics are relevant, but they neither govern the assessment nor displace evidence about the individual and likely future working conditions.

Injury-to-feelings awards are compensatory, fair to both parties and non-punitive. The conventional bands were £15,000–£25,000 for the most serious cases, £5,000–£15,000 for serious cases, and £500–£5,000 for less serious cases. Awards above £25,000 should be exceptional.

Aggravated damages depend on the circumstances and handling of the discrimination. Tribunals must consider the overall award for injury to feelings, psychiatric injury and aggravated damages, and prevent double recovery for overlapping harm.

Angela Vento, a former probationary police constable, succeeded before an Employment Tribunal in a claim that persistent sex discrimination had caused her dismissal. The tribunal awarded substantial compensation, including future earnings calculated on a 75% chance of a full police career, £50,000 for injury to feelings, £15,000 aggravated damages and £9,000 for psychiatric injury.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal set aside the future-loss assessment and remitted it to a fresh tribunal. It also reduced the combined award for injury to feelings and aggravated damages to £30,000, while leaving the psychiatric award unchanged.

Ms Vento appealed concerning future loss. The Chief Constable cross-appealed for a further reduction of the non-pecuniary award. The Court of Appeal therefore addressed the assessment of a lost career chance, the proper levels of compensation for injury to feelings, overlapping heads of non-pecuniary loss, and its role on a second appeal from the Employment Appeal Tribunal.

Lord Justice Mummery delivered the single judgment of the Court. The appeal and cross-appeal were allowed.

1. On an appeal from the Employment Appeal Tribunal, the Court of Appeal remains concerned with whether the Employment Tribunal made an error of law and, if so, how that error should be corrected. The intervening specialist appellate decision deserves attention and respect, but does not prevent examination of the Employment Tribunal’s decision. The approach in Hennessy v Craigmyle & Co Ltd [1986] ICR 461 remained applicable.

2. Assessment of future earnings required a forecast of the chance that, absent discrimination and dismissal, the claimant would have remained in the police until retirement. Applying Ministry of Defence v Cannock [1994] ICR 918, the tribunal had to make its best assessment from all relevant material. Statistics were relevant but not determinative. The claimant’s determination, the tribunal’s direct assessment of her evidence, changing social conditions, family-friendly policies and her personal circumstances permitted the 75% assessment. It was high, but not perverse, and the Employment Appeal Tribunal should not have interfered.

3. Injury-to-feelings awards are compensatory and must be just to both parties. They should compensate fully without punishing the discriminator. They should neither undermine anti-discrimination policy by being too low nor create an appearance of excessive enrichment. Tribunals should consider the broad range of personal-injury awards, the everyday value of money and the need for public respect. The principles summarised in HM Prison Service v Johnson [1997] ICR 275 were approved.

4. The Employment Tribunal’s £74,000 global award for non-pecuniary loss was wholly excessive and therefore erroneous in law. The fair total was £32,000: £18,000 for injury to feelings, £5,000 aggravated damages and the unchallenged £9,000 for psychiatric injury. The reduction reflected conventional compensation levels and did not diminish the seriousness of the discrimination.

5. For guidance, the top band for injury to feelings was normally £15,000–£25,000 and applied to the most serious cases, including lengthy campaigns of discriminatory harassment. Awards exceeding £25,000 should be exceptional. The middle band was £5,000–£15,000 for serious cases not reaching the highest band. The lower band was £500–£5,000 for less serious or isolated acts, and awards below £500 should generally be avoided. Each band retained considerable flexibility.

6. Whether to award aggravated damages, and their amount, depends on the circumstances of the discrimination and how the complaint was handled. Tribunals must also consider the combined magnitude of awards for injury to feelings, psychiatric injury and aggravated damages. Any overlap must be accounted for so that the claimant does not recover twice for the same harm.

The financial-loss figure was restored. The awards substituted were £18,000 for injury to feelings and £5,000 aggravated damages, with psychiatric damages remaining at £9,000.

1. Court of Appeal: In Vento v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police [2002] EWCA Civ 1871, allowed both the appeal and cross-appeal. It restored the Employment Tribunal’s financial-loss assessment and substituted £18,000 for injury to feelings and £5,000 aggravated damages, leaving £9,000 psychiatric damages unchanged.
2. Employment Appeal Tribunal, remedies appeal: By order dated 4 December 2001, set aside the 75% future-career assessment and remitted future loss to a freshly constituted tribunal. It substituted £25,000 for injury to feelings and £5,000 aggravated damages, while affirming the £9,000 psychiatric award.
3. Employment Appeal Tribunal, liability appeal: Dismissed the Chief Constable’s appeal on 8 June 2000. No further appeal was brought on liability.
4. Employment Tribunal: Unanimously upheld the sex-discrimination and unfair-dismissal claims, with reasons sent on 4 October 1999. Following a remedies hearing, it awarded future earnings on a 75% chance of a full police career, £50,000 for injury to feelings, £15,000 aggravated damages and £9,000 psychiatric damages; reasons were sent on 5 March 2001.