The claimants were found to have been unfairly dismissed. One of them had sought reinstatement and the others sought only compensation, though sought reinstatement in this appeal. The ET found that reinstatement was impracticable and found on remedy, that they had not mitigated their losses, made no ACAS uplift as the claim as their counsel had not specified the particular provisions relied on and similarly the pensions loss claims had not been particularised.

Mrs Justice Eady allowed their appeals in part, though it had not erred in its decision on reinstatement or re-engagement as, broadly, the points relied on had not been made below. ON compensation, Eady J found that ET erred in its failure to consider the ACAS uplift as one of the claimant’s ET1 had provided some particulars and both Claimants had included claims for an uplift in their schedules of loss. As for the pensions loss claim, this had been included as a heading within the schedule of loss and the Respondent’s counter-schedule set out the relevant calculation. Given that it was not disputed that this was a loss suffered by the claimant, an injustice arose from the ET’s failure to make an award under this heading as the ET was in a position to make an award on the basis of the undisputed figures given by the Respondent. The overriding duty on the ET was to make an award that was just and equitable in the circumstances; in discounting the claim for loss of pension benefits, it had failed to do so.