Salter v Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust

An appellate tribunal will not revisit an Employment Tribunal’s factual findings unless a perversity challenge meets its high threshold. A tribunal need not refer to every item of evidence or answer every argument advanced by a party.

Compensation for personal injury and consequential losses requires a factual basis for finding that the unlawful discriminatory act caused the claimed loss. An award for injury to feelings will not be disturbed where it falls within the applicable Vento bracket and within the reasonable ambit of the tribunal’s discretion.

The Claimant appealed against the Employment Tribunal’s remedy decision following its liability decision of 27 May 2013, for which reasons were issued on 14 August 2013. The Tribunal had found one act of race discrimination, unfair dismissal, and breach of contract. It awarded compensation, including £6,000 for injury to feelings.

The Claimant contended that the discriminatory conduct at a meeting on 28 October 2011 caused her illness, inability to engage in a reorganisation process, dismissal, and further financial loss. She also challenged the personal-injury and injury-to-feelings awards. The central issue was whether those challenges disclosed an error of law or perversity in the Tribunal’s factual and remedial findings.

Appeal dismissed. HHJ Serota QC held that none of the grounds disclosed a basis for appellate intervention.

1. The principal challenge was, in substance, one of perversity. The Employment Appeal Tribunal could not revisit factual findings in the absence of perversity or a decision outside Wednesbury principles. The Claimant had not met the high threshold stated in Yeboah v Crofton [2002] IRLR 634. There was evidence capable of supporting the Tribunal’s findings. A tribunal was not required to recount all evidence or address every argument.

2. The Tribunal had been entitled to find no causal connection between the single discriminatory act on 28 October 2011 and the Claimant’s later illness, disengagement from the reorganisation, or dismissal. The Claimant’s original complaints principally concerned the refusal to place her directly into a Band 9 role and the requirement for competitive assessment. The Tribunal had rejected the other alleged discriminatory acts. The absence of medical evidence also supported its refusal to make a personal-injury award.

3. The award of £6,000 for injury to feelings was at the upper end of the lower Vento bracket and was within the range of reasonable awards on the facts. The Tribunal was therefore entitled to maintain that award without compensation for the alleged consequential illness or dismissal-related loss.

• Employment Appeal Tribunal: The Claimant’s appeal from the remedy decision was dismissed: [2015] UKEAT 0122_14_0406.
• Employment Tribunal, London (Central): Found unfair dismissal, breach of contract, and one act of race discrimination. Its remedy decision awarded a basic award, compensatory award, injury-to-feelings compensation, interest, and contractual damages.