The Claimant was dismissed and won his claim of unfair dismissal at the ET. He was awarded various sums of compensation and injury to feelings. A subsequent reconsideration hearing did not disturb the main findings. He appealed on the basis that the ET had erred by not ordering reinstatement and failing that by not ordering reengagement. He also complained at the level of injury to feelings which had been assessed to be within the lower Vento band, and against the award for future loss of earnings and the failure to apply interest to the injury to feelings award.

The EAT dismissed all of the grounds apart from the application of interest. The conclusion reached by the ET on the issue of re-instatement was to the effect that, on the facts found, whilst re-instatement was “possible” it was not reasonable to expect it to be ordered. The Claimant’s argument that the ET misapplied the law in reading "reasonably practicable" as meaning “reasonable” whereas it should have determined it as meaning “possible” was misconceived. In relation to re-engagement, the ET erred by not addressing this remedy but this was remedied at the reconsideration hearing - in the circumstances there was no evidential basis upon which the ET could order re-engagement where the Claimant had not sought this remedy at the ET. In relation to the injury to feelings award the ET formed the view that the present case was a “less serious” one (adopting the description in Vento) and awarded compensation accordingly. That was a conclusion which was open to the tribunal. It was not a perverse conclusion. However, the ET did err in not applying interest. The ET also did not err when assessing the Claimant's future loss at 6 months rather than 2 years. This ground of appeal appeared to amount to no more than a disagreement with the decision of the ET.