St Andrews Catholic Primary School & Ors v Blundell

Compensation for injury to feelings must reflect the seriousness of the discriminatory conduct by reference to the established bands. Serious conduct does not necessarily fall within the top band, which is reserved for the most serious cases. Comparable authorities may provide a benchmark.

Future loss must be assessed by identifying the period during which discrimination caused the claimant’s inability to obtain comparable work. Net future loss should then be grossed up for tax. A recommendation requiring an individual to make statements contrary to their genuine belief should be modified.

The Employment Tribunal found that Mrs Blundell had been unfairly dismissed, victimised on grounds of sex and dismissed in breach of contract. At the remedies hearing it awarded substantial compensation, including £22,000 for injury to feelings, £5,000 aggravated damages and future loss of earnings, and recommended that the school send an apologetic letter to parents and teachers.

The school appealed the remedies. Mrs Blundell cross-appealed the calculation of loss for the period from 15 February 2010 to 15 February 2015. The central issues were the proper level and calculation of compensation, disclosure and case management, and the permissible wording and scope of the recommendation.

1. Appeal and cross-appeal. The appeal succeeded in part and the cross-appeal succeeded. The compensatory award was remitted to the same Tribunal for recalculation. The recommendation was varied.
2. Injury to feelings. The victimisation was serious and had deeply unpleasant consequences, but it was not comparable with the most serious cases involving a lengthy campaign of discriminatory harassment. Applying the guidance in Vento, and using Salmon, Johnson and the updated figures in Da'bell as benchmarks, the appropriate award was £14,000 rather than £22,000.
3. Aggravated damages. The Tribunal was entitled to find that the Appellants’ conduct at the remedies hearing aggravated the injury to feelings. They had introduced extensive evidence seeking to undermine findings already made about the Respondent’s teaching ability. The award of £5,000 was not shown to be erroneous.
4. Future loss. It was appropriate to assess how long, because of the victimisation and its effects, the Respondent would take to recover sufficiently to seek comparable teaching work. The five-year period adopted by the Tribunal was not perverse. However, the continuing annual loss had been calculated arithmetically incorrectly and required reconsideration.
5. Grossing up. The Tribunal had used the wrong method for the later period of loss. It should calculate net loss and gross up the resulting award to reflect tax liability.
6. Recommendation. Sending a corrective letter to current parents and staff was appropriate in the circumstances. The wording had to be amended so that Mrs Assid was not required to state that her criticisms were unfounded or that the Respondent had been capable and hard-working throughout her career, since she did not genuinely hold those views.
7. The Tribunal’s implicit refusal of late third-party disclosure was within its case-management powers. The challenge to entertaining the recommendation issue was rejected: the argument had been sufficiently raised below, applying the approach illustrated by Kumchyk.

1. Employment Appeal Tribunal: Appeal allowed in part and cross-appeal allowed. The injury-to-feelings award was reduced, the compensatory award was remitted for recalculation, and the recommendation was varied.
2. Employment Tribunal: Found unfair dismissal, victimisation and breach of contract, and awarded compensation and made a statutory recommendation.