Employment Appeal Tribunal reduces hurt feelings award to former truck depot planner by £8,000

About this case:

• Citation:
  [2025] EAT 14
• Judgment:
  External link
• Court:
  Employment Appeal Tribunal
• Judge:
  Judge Barry Clarke

Eddie Stobart Ltd employed the claimant and respondent Caitlin Graham for just over ten months at their depot in Newhouse, North Lanarkshire. It argued that the award, derived from a claim of detrimental treatment and maternity discrimination, was excessive and inadequately reasoned.

The appeal was heard by Judge Barry Clarke, with Paras Gorasia and Adeola Fadipe appearing for the respondent and appellant and William McParland for the claimant.

One-off incident

In July 2021 the claimant started a role as one of nine planners at the respondent’s Newhouse depot. On 21 October 2021, she notified her line manager that she was pregnant, having become aware of this the previous day. Separately, in March 2022 the respondent decided that it would cease its planning function in Scotland and announced a 30-day consultation in relation to the proposed redundancy of the nine planners in Newhouse and the creation of four new “transport shift manager” roles at the same location.

As the consultation began, the claimant asserted her right to be offered suitable alternative employment during maternity leave. The respondent took the view that the new TSM roles were not suitable available vacancies in terms of the Maternity and Parental Leave etc Regulations 1999, requiring the claimant to attend for a competitive interview. The claimant was not successful in obtaining a TSM role and submitted a grievance about the matter to the manager who handled the initial stages of the consultation process.

The claimant was asked to resend the grievance to HR, however the respondent’s firewall system blocked the emails doing so as a security risk. Consequently, they did not receive attention. She presented a claim to the ET of automatic unfair dismissal in July 2022. While the ET did not uphold her complaint of unfair dismissal, it did uphold a complaint of detrimental treatment and maternity discrimination insofar as the respondent failed to take adequate steps to deal with her grievance. Consequently, it awarded her £10,000 for injury to feelings.

Counsel for the respondent on appeal submitted that an award in the middle band, derived from Vento v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police (2003) was so excessive as to be perverse. The failure to deal with the grievance was a one-off isolated incident and the award was disproportionate to the degree of upset suffered by the claimant.

Procedural, not substantive

In his decision, Judge Clarke noted the only evidence before the ET on hurt feelings: “This is a case where there was limited evidence before the ET of the extent of the claimant’s injury; she had said that she was ‘shocked’ and ‘upset’ because of a ‘dismissive’ attitude towards ‘what [she] had to say’ and her ‘rights’. The ET, having seen and heard her give evidence at a four-day hearing, found this to be a “degree of upset”. That is not to criticise the claimant for her answer, which was doubtless an honest one and plainly sufficient to engage an award for injury to feelings. But, in description and substance, this was a fleeting response.”

He continued: “Although there were two missed emails, in substance the respondent’s failure to deal with her grievance was an isolated act; it may not have felt like it to the claimant at the time, but it must be remembered that it was the only part of her claim that the ET upheld. Given that the ET dismissed all other aspects of her claim, it follows that the grievance was not obviously meritorious; this was a procedural rather than substantive failing. There was nothing about her case that might indicate humiliation by way of ridicule or disempowerment.”

Judge Clarke expressed concern that the ET may have considered unsuccessful aspects of the claimant’s case in making the award, saying: “When deciding the amount of the sum, it referred specifically to ‘the failure of the respondent to take seriously her position that she had a right to be offered the TSM role as a suitable vacancy’. However, the ET had rejected her complaint in that regard. Her position, in law, was not well founded. It might have been open to the ET to conclude that the claimant’s prior experience had increased her fragility and that, in consequence, the subsequent injury was more serious, but there was no finding to that effect.”

He concluded: “The ET did not explain why it settled upon the figure of £10,000 as opposed to any other. It said that it had ‘had regard’ to the case of Vento but it did not explain how it had assessed the seriousness or otherwise of the claimant’s injury in order to merit an award at the lower end of middle band. There was no qualitative consideration of how upset the claimant had been, in order to understand what was meant by the ‘degree’ of upset she experienced. Without that analysis, even if only briefly set out, I cannot be confident that the ET had the correct principles in mind.”

The appeal was therefore allowed, with the ET’s award substituted for one of £2,000 plus £169 in interest.