Interest on tribunal awards, and the separate regime which applies to discrimination compensation. Marshall v Southampton and South-West Hampshire Area Health Authority (No.2).
Discrimination; remedies; the statutory cap on compensation for sex discrimination was unlawful under EU law. The ECJ also held that interest on discrimination compensation is an essential component of the award, establishing the principle that gave effect to the Employment Tribunals (Interest on Awards in Discrimination Cases) Regulations 1996.
Remedies; interest; the EAT ruled that employment tribunals must consider awarding interest on discrimination compensation regardless of whether the parties have applied for it, following the principle in Marshall (No.2) that interest is an essential component of discrimination compensation. Stacey J held it was not correct for the tribunal to rely on the absence of an application to justify not awarding interest. The appeal also raised the placing of the injury to feelings award in the lower rather than the middle Vento band. HHJ Stacey held there was no error: the tribunal had correctly directed itself, per Cadogan Hotel Partners Ltd v Ozog UKEAT/0001/14 and Essa v Laing Ltd, to the effect of the treatment on the claimant rather than the gravity of the respondent's acts, and there is no rule confining the lower band to one-off acts. The claimant had shown remarkable resilience over several years of discrimination and recovered near the top of the lower band. The EAT also applied the Simmons v Castle uplift, substituting a total of GBP 12,757.