The Claimant was unfairly dismissed and was awarded compensation. However, the ET applied a percentage reduction to his compensation on the basis that he had failed to mitigate his loss – when he was not offered a permanent position by his subsequent employer – and it ended the period of loss as at that date. The Claimant appealed on the grounds that the ET had erred in applying a percentage reduction, and in terminating his loss of earnings when his subsequent employment ended. The Respondent cross-appealed, contending that the ET had used incorrect figures in calculating the compensation.

The EAT held that the ET had erred in applying a percentage reduction rather than assessing the differential loss suffered by the Claimant, and that it had failed to explain why the termination of the Claimant's subsequent employment brought to an end the Respondent's liability for the difference in remuneration. Accordingly, the finding that a percentage reduction should be applied to the compensation would be quashed, and the matter remitted to the same ET to make a finding as to the period of loss of earnings and to recalculate the compensatory award; also, the Respondent's cross-appeal would be remitted to the same ET to recalculate the compensation.