[Thanks
to
Kathleen Donnelly of Henderson Chambers for providing this case summary]
The EAT (Wilkie J) has handed down its decision in
St
Andrew's Catholic School v Blundell. The case concerned the
victimisation of a teacher over a 4 month period, culminating in her
dismissal. The Tribunal awarded £22,000 injury to feelings, £5,000
aggravated damages, 5 years loss of future earnings, and recommended the
Respondent send a letter to all parents and teachers stating that the
headmistress accepted all criticism of the Claimant's teaching ability was
unfounded.
The EAT's judgement is an interesting source of reading on remedies in SDA
cases. In particular, it:
-
reduced compensation for injury to feelings to £14,000. The judgment
includes a helpful review of some post-Vento mid- to upper-range
authorities;
-
upheld the aggravated damages award on the basis of the manner in which
the Respondent conducted the remedies hearing, criticising the
Claimant's teaching ability, contrary to the evidence presented at the
liability hearing;
-
upheld the award in principle of 5 years future loss of earnings; and,
-
held that the terms of the tribunal's recommendation should be amended
so as not to require the headmistress to make statements with which she
("however wrongheaded") does not agree.
Comment from Ray Parsons:-
Taking individual cases out of context to justify a
decision in any individual doctor's situation may not be helpful. ET and EAT
decisions on similar facts tend to be made in opposite directions even on
the same day in different ET hearings in different parts of the country.
Thus there is much less consistency with regard to precedent in ET/EAT
decisions which means that the result as we have seen in both Otto Chan's
case and Shirine Boardman's case can be quite unpredictable.