Balogh & Ors v Hick Lane Bedding Ltd

In assessing damages for modern slavery-related employment torts, the court may award compensation for loss of autonomy, psychiatric injury, and sub-clinical distress or injury to feelings. The Vento guidelines provide the appropriate framework for injury to feelings. Where several heads of loss arise from one indivisible experience and substantially overlap, a single global award may prevent double recovery. Exemplary damages may be awarded where the defendant cynically exploited the claimants for profit. Financial losses may include unpaid wages, past and future loss of earnings caused by psychiatric injury, and reasonable treatment costs.

The claimants brought employer’s liability claims against a bedding manufacturer following their exploitation as trafficked Hungarian workers. Judgment in default had been entered in each claim, and the hearing concerned assessment of damages. The claims included unpaid wages, failure to provide a safe place and system of work, intimidation, harassment and exploitation. The court assessed general damages for intentional torts affecting personal autonomy, psychiatric injury, injury to feelings and exemplary damages, together with financial losses and medical treatment costs.

1. Damages for personal autonomy and psychiatric injury. The claimants were entitled to compensation for intentional torts of intimidation and harassment which deprived them of personal autonomy in circumstances closely akin to false imprisonment. They were also entitled to damages for psychiatric injury and for sub-clinical distress, anxiety and injury to feelings.
2. Injury to feelings. The Vento guidelines, reported at [2003] ICR 318, supplied the relevant three-band framework. The claimants’ circumstances fell within the middle or, in the most serious aspects, the upper range of the guidelines. The court considered that the relevant awards should reflect the duration and seriousness of the treatment.
3. Global award. Although the heads of loss could be identified separately, making separate awards would create substantial overlap and risk double recovery. Following the reasoning considered in AT v Dulghieru [2009] EWHC 225 (QB), the court assessed the appropriate bracket for each head and made one global award for the combined experience.
4. Exemplary damages. The defendant’s cynical exploitation of the claimants for profit fell within the second category identified by Lord Devlin in Rookes v Barnard [1964] AC 1129. Exemplary damages of £5,000 were awarded to each claimant. Aggravated damages were refused because the relevant injury to feelings and dignity was already reflected in the Vento award.
5. Further losses and quantum. Recoverable financial losses included unpaid wages, past and future loss of earnings attributable to psychiatric injury, and medical treatment costs. In assessing the effect of prolonged loss of liberty, the court applied a tapering approach to the impact of time, referring to MK (Algeria) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] EWCA Civ 980. Damages were assessed at £65,000, £70,000 and £55,000 in general damages respectively, plus the separately assessed financial and treatment losses.