Reductions to basic and compensatory awards

Book your free initial call

    We endeavour to make an initial response to all enquiries within 24 hours but please be aware that on some occasions due to prior commitments or volume of calls we will not be able to respond in that time frame. We also operate a 48 hour return policy. This return policy means that if we have not responded with 48 hours of your initial enquiry we are unable to do so due to current workloads and we will destroy your data accordingly. This policy ensures you are not left waiting and have the certainty that your data is not compromised. In most instances however we are able to make contact within a 24 hour time frame. Please note our free initial advice service is available to clients at our total discretion and if your case is of a complex nature we may not be able to offer you a free consultation. However in these instances we will advise you what the charge would be for an initial fixed fee consultation.
  • (view our privacy statement)
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Was it unacceptable to reduce a compensatory award by 35% but not to also reduce the basic award?

In University of Sunderland v Drossou the Employment Appeal Tribunal held that Yes, it was unacceptable.

In this case the Claimant, a Senior Lecturer and Programme Leader, was dismissed following a restructure. The reason for dismissal was an irretrievable breakdown in working relationships for which the Respondent University said she was primarily to blame. As a result, she brought a claim of unfair dismissal (and other claims of race and disability discrimination).

The unfair dismissal claim was upheld by the employment tribunal, however, it was decided that the Claimant was not entirely blameless – she was somewhere between partly and equally to blame. Consequently, the compensatory award was reduced by 35%, but no reduction was made to the basic award. The University appealed and the Employment Appeal Tribunal upheld the appeal, and reduced the basic award by 35%.

In reaching its decision the EAT relied on the Court of Appeal case of RSPCA v Cruden, where it held that although the tests for reducing the basic and compensatory award were different, a differentiation between them would only be justified in exceptional circumstances. The EAT found that as the Tribunal had reduced the compensatory by 35% it was perverse not to also reduce the basic award by the same amount.

Written by

Edward Aston
4th August 2017