The ET upheld complaints by the Claimant of four instances of harassment related to disability, culminating in constructive dismissal; unfair dismissal; one complaint of failure to make reasonable adjustments (relating to a failure to offer workplace mediation); and a failure to pay holiday pay. In its remedy decision, the Tribunal assessed compensation for the disability discrimination claims in the total sum of £373,939.69. The Claimant appealed against the percentage uplift applied to the award, the failure to deal with loss of bonus, the decision to deduct the Claimant's PIP benefit from his award and the assessment of the multiplier when calculating future loss. The Respondent cross-appealed against the multiplier used, arguing that the ET had erred in using gross salary figures as the multiplicand for future loss of earnings.

The EAT dismissed the appeal and allowed the cross appeal. ACAS Uplift: the ET’s reasons disclosed no error of law. Assessment of future contingencies: the ET reached an assessment that it was entitled to make on the evidence; its reasons adequately explained why it made the deduction of 50% from the future loss multiplier. Deduction of PIP benefits from the award of compensation: There was no rule of law that provided that a state benefit provided for care costs could only be set off against a claim for damages for care costs. The PIP benefit was a sum received by the Claimant in consequence of the Respondent’s unlawful act: but for the unlawful act it would not have been received. The ET did not err in setting it off against the losses claimed. The ET did not err in dismissing the care claims that were made, nor in failing to find that the Claimant’s loss included everyday care losses which had not been claimed. Loss of Bonus: The ET did not err in failing to deal with a small claim for loss of annual bonus. The claim was not in the Claim Form or Schedule of Loss and was not properly before the ET. Cross-Appeal – gross/net figures for future loss multiplicand: the ET used a gross salary figure for the future-loss multiplicand despite finding the future award would not be taxable in the Claimant’s hands. The Claimant’s argument that this was a deliberate choice could not be accepted – it is clear in the context of the ET’s reasons as a whole that this was an oversight. The EAT set aside the future loss of earnings award of £147,071.19 and substituted an award of £108,833.