Appeal No.	 EAT/1318/01

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 9 May 2002

Before
HER HONOUR JUDGE A WAKEFIELD
MR D CHADWICK
MRS M T PROSSER

LONDON BOROUGH OF HACKNEY	APPELLANT

MISS K E ADAMS	RESPONDENT

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING EX PARTE

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	MR SINCLAIR CRAMSIE
(of Counsel)
Messrs Davenport Lyons Solicitors
1 Old Burlington Street
London
W1S 3NL	

HER HONOUR JUDGE A WAKEFIELD

1	This is an Ex Parte Preliminary Hearing of an appeal by the London Borough of Hackney against part of a decision made by an Employment Tribunal sitting at Stratford.  By that decision, sent to the parties on 18 September 2001 following a hearing on 3 September, it was held that the Respondent (the original Applicant) was refused employment by the Appellant because of her membership of a trade union, that being unlawful by reason of the provisions of Section 137(1)(a) of the Trade Union & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.  The Employment Tribunal made a declaration to that effect and awarded to the Respondent compensation in the sum of £201 for loss of wages (she having shortly thereafter been promoted by the Appellant to a better job than that which had been denied to her) and the sum of £5,000 injury to her feelings.  This appeal is confined to that latter award of £5,000.  It is argued that in all the circumstances of the case it was excessive and that the Employment Tribunal failed to give proper reasons for arriving at that sum.  

2	What the Employment Tribunal said as to their quantification of the award for injury to feelings is the following, in their paragraphs 39(iii), 40 and 41:

“With regard to compensation for injury to feelings, we are mindful of the comments of His Honour Judge Peter Clark in ICTS (UK) Ltd v Tchoula [2000] IRLR 643 at page 647, where he states – 
	“Awards for injury to feelings are compensatory, not punitive.  Awards should not be so low as to diminish the respect for the policy [of anti-discrimination legislation] nor so high as to be perceived as a way to untaxed riches.  They should have a broad general similarity to the range of awards in personal injury cases.  Employment tribunals should remind themselves of the value in everyday life of the sum they have in mind.  Awards should command public respect.”
Counsel for the Respondent has drawn our attention to the case of Cleveland Ambulance NHS Trust v Blane, when the Employment Appeal Tribunal upheld an award of £1,000 compensation for injury to feelings when an employee was not put on a short-list for a job due to his union activities.
The representative for the Applicant has said that this case is a great deal more serious.  The Applicant had been offered the job, had the offer withdrawn and then suffered the humiliation of having to tell her work colleagues, had to cancel her leaving party and suffered a slur upon her professional reputation which she felt the given reasons for the withdrawal of the offer implied.  We are in agreement that the Applicant has suffered real injury to her feelings but, as cases go, we do not consider it to be an extreme case and we therefore find that a compensatory award for injury to feelings of £5,000 is appropriate.”

3	We have today been referred in the course of argument by counsel for the Appellant to guidelines in personal injury cases and to awards for psychiatric damage in which the sum of £5,000 falls in the bracket to be awarded for moderate psychiatric damage, the symptoms of such damage to include the injured party’s ability to cope with life and work, the effect on the injured person’s relationships with family, friends and those with whom he or she comes into contact, the extent to which treatment would be successful and future vulnerability.  

4	While we accept that such comparisons with personal injury damages may be useful, it is nevertheless still the case that the numbers of awards in discrimination cases have not yet reached the level at which discernable brackets or guidelines can be formulated.  We have to bear in  mind that we should not interfere as an Appeal Tribunal with awards of damages in such cases unless they are manifestly excessive and outside any possible brackets or guidelines. 

5	We are reminded by counsel for the Appellant that there may be an important distinction to be drawn between awards for sex and race discrimination, especially where personal abuse has been the basis of the complaint, and awards for trade union discrimination.  This is a matter which we consider should be further considered by full argument in this Appeal Tribunal.  We therefore allow this appeal to go forward to a Full Hearing.  Category B.  Half a day.  Skeleton arguments not less than fourteen days prior to the hearing.