Appeal No. EATS/0006/02

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
52 MELVILLE STREET, EDINBURGH EH3 7HF

	At the Tribunal
	On 22 October 2002

 
Before
THE HONOURABLE LORD JOHNSTON
MR A J RAMSDEN
MR M G SMITH

 

DINARDO PARTNERSHIP 	APPELLANTS

 

 
DONALD ALEXANDER BINGHAM	RESPONDENT

 
 
Transcript of Proceedings
 
JUDGMENT

 

 

 

 

 

	APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellants	Mrs C Greig, Solicitor
Of-
Messrs Macroberts
Solicitors
152 Bath Street
GLASGOW   G2 4TB
 	
For the Respondent	Mr F H Lefevre Solicitor
Of-
Quantum Claims
Employment Division
70 Carden Place
Queens Cross
ABERDEEN   AB10 1UP

 

LORD JOHNSTON:
 
1.	In this case the respondent employee successfully obtained an award from the Employment Tribunal in respect of his dismissal from his employment with the appellant employers by reason of discrimination on grounds of disability.
 
2.	No challenge is taken before us in that respect.  The issues that were raised before us being concerned with certain aspects of the damages which were awarded under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 which in terms of section 8(3) thereof require to be assessed according to the general law of damages in the law of Scotland.
 
3.	Mrs Greig, appearing for the appellants, substantial position related to the undisputed fact that after a certain period of time, consequent upon the dismissal, the respondent was temporarily employed by another party, limited to a period of 4 days, in respect of which the evidence discloses that he was not taken on permanently by reason of the fact that no references were provided, particularly, by the former employer, the appellants, although no criticism or suggestion of bad faith in that respect was made either before the Tribunal or before us.
 
4.	Mr Lefevre, appearing for the respondents, admitted, as was accepted by Mrs Greig, that a temporary period of employment did not normally interrupt the chain of causation flowing from the original dismissal and the only issue, therefore, was whether or not in this particular case the Tribunal were entitled to conclude, on the evidence before it, that such was a proper view of the situation.
 
5.	We consider that the Tribunal was so entitled to find, inasmuch that, the employment was obviously temporary, was short term in fact and was subject to references which were not obtained.  The issue is essentially a jury one and we consider that the Tribunal were entitled to reach their conclusion in this respect.
 
6.	Mrs Greig had a supplementary position that, in any event, the Tribunal should have considered how much longer the temporary employment might have lasted in terms of reducing the award but we do not consider this was a legitimate exercise for the Tribunal to undertake.  It was required to and did reflect what actually happened and did make a deduction in that respect.
 
7.	Finally, Mrs Greig submitted that the figure of £5,000 awarded for injury to feelings was excessive.  As Mr Lefevre pointed out, this is very much a jury question and is not for this Tribunal to interfere with this assessment unless it can be regarded as grossly disproportionate to what should have been awarded.  We cannot so conclude.
 
8.	In addition, there was a cross-appeal at the instance of the respondent in relation to the period which was actually determined by the Tribunal for the assessment of future loss.  Mr Lefevre submitted that given the background of this case the period was too short, however, he was forced to accept that this was also a jury question and should only be interfered with by this Tribunal, if again, the period that was selected by the Employment Tribunal was grossly disproportionate to what should be the correct period.  Again, in this respect, we consider the Tribunal was entitled to reach the conclusion it did and we will not interfere with it.
 
9.	In these circumstances, for these short reasons, both the appeal and the cross-appeal will be refused.