In the case of BMI Healthcare Ltd v Shoukrey the Claimant worked for the Respondent as a consultant in private practice. He alleged that he suffered detriments, having made various protected disclosures, and he succeeded before the ET in respect of some of the claimed detriments.
At the remedy hearing, the ET ordered the Respondent to pay the Claimant around £920,000, including more than £880,000 for loss of earnings from private practice (mostly for future loss). The Respondent appealed on the grounds that the ET (1) had failed to consider the possibility that the Claimant resigned practising privileges for reasons other than the detriments, (2) had erred in law in failing to apply its own factual findings on discount, (3) had erred in law in determining what the Claimant would have earned in future and for how long he would have done so, and (4) took an excessively pessimistic view of the Claimant’s ability to mitigate his loss.
The EAT held that the ET failed in the basic task of determining the question before it in respect of the causation of the Claimant’s loss; the EAT also upheld the Respondent’s appeal on grounds (2) and (4) above. Accordingly, the case would be remitted to a fresh ET for consideration of the relevant matters.
This provides summary information and comment on the subject areas covered. Where employment tribunal and appellate court cases are reported, the information does not set out all of the facts, the legal arguments presented and the judgments made in every aspect of the case. Employment law is subject to constant change either by statute or by interpretation by the courts. While every care has been taken in compiling this information, we cannot be held responsible for any errors or omissions. Specialist legal advice must be taken on any legal issues that may arise before embarking upon any formal course of action.
