Prohibited conduct claims: injury to feelings and personal injury
Prohibited conduct claims: injury to feelings and personal injury

The following Employment practice note provides comprehensive and up to date legal information covering:

  • Prohibited conduct claims: injury to feelings and personal injury
  • Injury to feelings
  • Injury to feelings—general principles
  • The purpose of the award
  • Compensatory not punitive
  • Not a deterrent
  • Acts arising out of the prohibited conduct
  • Assess like personal injury awards, not defamation
  • Overlap with psychiatric damage awards
  • The bands awards should fall into (the Vento bands)
    • More...

Injury to feelings

Damages for injury to feelings are expressly allowed by the Equality Act 2010 (EqA 2010). Some award for injury to feelings will almost always be made in successful claims. However, there is no obligation to make an award, and it is perfectly appropriate for a tribunal to decide not to make an award under this head where only a matter of principle is involved, or where there is a 'technical' prohibited conduct but the 'victim' did not in fact suffer any injury to their feelings.

Injury to feelings—general principles

Once a decision is made to award compensation for injury to feelings, the general principles set out below should be borne in mind.

The purpose of the award

Awards for injury to feelings are designed to compensate victims for the hurt caused by knowing that they have been treated in a way that contravenes the EqA 2010. A finding that an employee would anyway have been dismissed a few months later for reasons that did not amount to prohibited conduct would not affect the hurt caused by the actual prohibited conduct or, therefore, the amount awarded for injury to feelings.

Compensatory not punitive

The level of an award for injury to feelings should not be affected by a desire to punish the discriminator.

Not a deterrent

An award should not be used as a means of deterring employers from particular courses

Navigate the law quickly and efficiently with Lexis®PSL
Imagine being able to quickly find up-to-date guidance on points of law and then easily pull up sources to support your advice. With LexisPSL, you can.
TAKE A FREE TRIAL TAKE A FREE TRIAL
Related documents:

Popular documents

LEXISNEXIS

Nuisance and the rule in Rylands v Fletcher—common law liability for pollution

Private nuisancePrivate nuisance is an unlawful interference with a person's use or enjoyment of land or some right over or in connection with it. Interference must be unreasonable, and may be caused, eg by water, smoke, smell, fumes, gas, noise, heat or vibrations. Where the defendant has not

LEXISNEXIS

Qualified one-way costs shifting (QOCS)

What is QOCS?Qualified one-way costs shifting (QOCS) was introduced on 1 April 2013 as part of the Jackson costs reforms following the removal of a claimant’s right to recover additional liabilities from the defendant, ie success fees and after the event (ATE) insurance premiums. The relevant CPR

LEXISNEXIS

Letter to client on disclosure obligations under CPR 31

This Precedent letter covers disclosure obligations under CPR 31. It does not apply to proceedings subject to the disclosure pilot scheme under CPR PD 51U. For guidance on the disclosure pilot scheme, see Practice Note: Business and Property Courts—the disclosure pilot scheme. For a client letter on

LEXISNEXIS

Automatism

Definition of automatismAn act is done in a state of automatism if it is done by the body without control by the mind, (eg it is a spasm or a reflex), or if it is done by a person who is not conscious of what they are doing. The act may be described as involuntary, but will not be regarded as such