Interaction Recruitment Plc v Morris

An award for injury to feelings in discrimination proceedings is compensatory, not punitive. The Employment Tribunal must assess the particular injury proved, using the Vento bands as guidance. It has a considerable margin of assessment and an appellate court should intervene only where the award is manifestly excessive, wrong in principle, or inadequately reasoned.

Where an award falls in a higher band than the claimant’s own valuation, the tribunal is not bound by that valuation. It must, however, give reasons which show why the evidence and findings justify the level awarded. Conduct aggravating the injury may be reflected in the award, but the tribunal should make clear that this is the basis of its assessment.

The Claimant succeeded before the East London Employment Tribunal in claims for unfair dismissal and sex discrimination. The Tribunal found that she had been dismissed shortly after telling the Respondent that she was pregnant. It awarded total compensation of £23,798.37, including £12,000 for injury to feelings.

The Respondent’s wider challenge to liability and remedy had not been permitted to proceed. Its appeal was confined to the injury-to-feelings award. It contended that the award was excessive and improperly punitive. The central issue was whether the Tribunal had adequately justified an award in the middle Vento band and, if not, the proper appellate disposal.

1. Appeal allowed. The award of £12,000 for injury to feelings was unsafe because the Tribunal’s Reasons did not adequately explain why this case justified an award in the middle Vento band.

2. Injury-to-feelings compensation must compensate the injury actually caused. It must not punish the respondent or deter future conduct. The Tribunal is normally best placed to assess the claimant’s injury and has a considerable margin of assessment. An appellate court should not merely tinker with an award.

3. The Claimant’s own valuation in the lower Vento band did not bind the Tribunal. It was nevertheless a relevant circumstance. The Tribunal needed to identify the evidence and findings which justified moving to the middle band, particularly where the only evidence of injury was the Claimant’s own evidence.

4. The Tribunal’s findings about the Respondent’s disparaging conduct and conduct of the proceedings might have supported compensation for aggravation of the injury. Aggravated damages form part of injury-to-feelings compensation. However, the Tribunal had not said that it was compensating aggravated injury or explained how it had reached £12,000. Its reference to likely future effects also did not sufficiently establish the injury actually suffered.

5. Ordinarily, the inadequately reasoned award would have been remitted for fresh consideration. With the Respondent’s agreement, however, the EAT could substitute its own assessment. Respecting the Tribunal’s view that the injury was more than trivial, but finding no basis for the middle band, the EAT substituted £6,000, at the top of the lower band.

• Employment Appeal Tribunal: allowed the Respondent’s appeal on the injury-to-feelings award and substituted £6,000.
• East London Employment Tribunal: upheld the Claimant’s unfair-dismissal and sex-discrimination claims and awarded total compensation of £23,798.37, including £12,000 for injury to feelings.