Eddie Stobart Limited v Caitlin Graham

The Employment Appeal Tribunal allowed the employer's appeal against an Employment Tribunal award for injury to feelings. The ET had found that the employer failed to take adequate steps to deal with the claimant's grievance, amounting to a detriment under section 47C Employment Rights Act 1996 (read with Regulation 19 of the Maternity and Parental Leave etc Regulations 1999) and pregnancy/maternity discrimination under section 18 Equality Act 2010. The EAT held that the ET's award of £10,000 for injury to feelings was manifestly excessive given the scant evidence of enduring injury and the limited, procedural nature of the unlawful act, and that the ET failed adequately to explain why it fixed that figure (not Meek-compliant).

The EAT substituted a reduced award of £2,000 for injury to feelings (toward the lower end of the lower Vento band) and awarded statutory interest of £169, totalling £2,169.

Background and parties: The claimant was employed for just over ten months and notified her pregnancy in October 2021. The employer reorganised its planning function and created new Transport Shift Manager (TSM) roles. The claimant asserted a right to be offered suitable alternative employment while on maternity leave under Regulation 10 of the Maternity and Parental Leave etc Regulations 1999 (MAPLE Regulations), was interviewed for a TSM role during maternity leave and was unsuccessful. She presented grievance emails which entered the employer's IT system but were blocked by the employer's firewall and therefore not seen by HR. The ET heard a four-day liability hearing and found only that the employer had failed adequately to deal with the claimant's grievance, amounting to detriment and pregnancy/maternity discrimination; all other complaints (including automatic unfair dismissal under section 99 ERA and victimisation) were dismissed.

Nature of the application and relief sought: The claimant sought remedies including compensation for injury to feelings and pecuniary loss. The ET awarded no pecuniary loss but awarded £10,000 for injury to feelings. The employer appealed only the remedy figure.

Issues before the EAT:

• Whether the ET's £10,000 award for injury to feelings was perverse or manifestly excessive;
• Whether the ET gave adequate reasons for the figure it chose (Meek compliance); and
• If error established, whether the EAT should remit the remedy or substitute its own figure and whether interest should be awarded.

Reasoning: The EAT reviewed principles on awards for injury to feelings (Armitage/Marsden/Johnson, Vento bands, De Souza presidential guidance) and emphasised that tribunals must focus on the claimant's proved injury, not punish the employer. The EAT held that there was only sparse evidence of injury (the claimant said she was "shocked" and "upset" and found the respondent "dismissive"). There was no finding of enduring psychological injury, impact on work or personal life, humiliation, ridicule or repeated conduct. The unlawful act was a limited, procedural failing (missed opportunities to follow up and check why grievance had not been received) rather than overt or sustained discrimination. The ET had also arguably taken into account the claimant's upset about aspects of the case it had rejected. On the second ground, the ET failed to explain why it selected £10,000 within the middle Vento band and did not set out qualitative reasoning to connect the evidence to that figure.

Disposition: The appeal was allowed. Applying the EAT's substitution powers and having regard to the evidence before the ET and authorities on interest, the EAT substituted an award of £2,000 for injury to feelings (lower Vento band) and awarded interest of £169 for the period 26 May 2022 to 14 June 2023, giving a total award of £2,169.

Appeal allowed. The Employment Tribunal erred in law by awarding £10,000 for injury to feelings which the EAT found to be manifestly excessive given the limited, procedural nature of the unlawful act and the scant evidence of enduring injury; the ET also failed adequately to explain why it chose that figure. The EAT substituted an award of £2,000 for injury to feelings and ordered interest of £169, totalling £2,169.

Employment Tribunal (Employment Judge Nielsen with members) heard liability and remedy; reserved judgment sent 14 June 2023. Appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal allowed on 29 January 2025 ([2025] EAT 14).