BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | ||
United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Preston v. Johnston & Anor (t/a Tom Henry's Restaurant) [1999] UKEAT 389_99_0706 (7 June 1999) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1999/389_99_0706.html Cite as: [1999] UKEAT 389_99_0706, [1999] UKEAT 389_99_706 |
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
At the Tribunal | |
Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE PETER CLARK
LORD GLADWIN OF CLEE CBE JP
MRS R A VICKERS
APPELLANT | |
RESPONDENT |
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
PRELIMINARY HEARING
For the Appellant | MR MARRIOTT (Solicitor) Labour Lex Ltd Office 21 Castle Park Frodsham Cheshire WA6 6UJ |
JUDGE PETER CLARK: This is an appeal by the Applicant, Miss Preston, against the remedies decision of an Employment Tribunal sitting at Liverpool on 6th January 1999, following that Tribunal's earlier finding at a liability hearing held on 24th September 1998 that the Appellant had been unlawfully discriminated against on grounds of her sex and unlawfully dismissed by her former employers, the Respondents. The Tribunal found that she had been dismissed for a reason connected with her pregnancy.
(1) that in calculating the loss of earnings suffered by the Appellant the Tribunal erred in
a) reducing the award by taking into account monies paid by the Respondent in respect partly of wages due prior to the date of dismissal, and secondly for statutory maternity pay, which would not have started until 25th September 1998, that is, after the cut off date for loss of earnings found by the Tribunal to be 15th August 1998, and
b) in taking that cut off date of 15th August when the evidence did not support such a finding
(2) the level of compensation for injury to feelings was demonstrably too low, and
(3) whether this was an appropriate case in which to award aggravated damages.