header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
02 March 2012 / Michael Salter , Chris Bryden
Issue: 7503 / Categories: Features , Tribunals , Disciplinary&grievance procedures , Employment
printer mail-detail

An alternative route

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Chris Bryden & Michael Salter advise how employees can make a successful claim for injury to feelings

It is trite law that a claimant who is successful in convincing an employment tribunal that their dismissal was unfair, within the meaning of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA 1996), is not entitled to receive, as part of their compensatory award, any damages for stress or injury to feelings that arise as a result of the manner of their dismissal. The House of Lords, as was, made this point clear in Dunnachie v Kingston-Upon-Hull City Council [2004] UKHL 36, [2004] 3 All ER 1011. The reasoning is that s 123 of ERA 1996, which governs the compensatory award, does not permit recovery of non-financial losses. However, there is a mechanism by which such a claimant could obtain from the court an award of compensation for injury to feelings caused by their dismissal in appropriate circumstances.

The Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (PHA 1997) permits the recovery of compensation by a claimant

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
Birketts—Nathan Evans

Birketts—Nathan Evans

Commercial and technology team in Cambridge strengthened by partner hire

Andrew & Andrew Solicitors—Shikha Datta

Andrew & Andrew Solicitors—Shikha Datta

Hampshire firm appoints head of new family department

Latham & Watkins—Sarah Lightdale

Latham & Watkins—Sarah Lightdale

Firm strengthens securities practice with partner return

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Mazur and more—inside the litigation frontline

From blockbuster judgments to procedural shake-ups, the courts are busy reshaping litigation practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School hails the Court of Appeal's 'exquisite judgment’ in Mazur restoring the role of supervised non-qualified staff, and highlights a ‘mammoth’ damages ruling likened to War and Peace, alongside guidance on medical reporting fees, where a pragmatic 25% uplift was imposed

NLJ this week: Social media bans for children spark legal dilemmas
Momentum is building behind proposals to restrict children’s access to social media—but the legal and practical challenges are formidable. In NLJ this week, Nick Smallwood of Mills & Reeve examines global moves, including Australia’s under-16 ban and the UK's consultation
NLJ this week: Leasehold reform risks creating ‘forgotten freeholders’
Reforms designed to rebalance landlord-tenant relations may instead penalise leaseholders themselves. In this week's NLJ, Mike Somekh of The Freehold Collective warns that the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 risks creating an ‘underclass’ of resident-controlled freehold companies
NLJ this week: Court of Appeal clarifies when a claim truly begins
Timing is everything—and the Court of Appeal has delivered clarity on when proceedings are ‘brought’. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ, Stephen Gold explains that a claim is issued for limitation purposes when the claim form is delivered to the court, even if fees are underpaid
NLJ this week: Split FDRs could ease pressure—and boost settlements
The traditional ‘single, intensive day’ of financial dispute resolution (FDR) may be due for a rethink. Writing in NLJ this week, Rachel Frost-Smith and Lauren Guiler of Birketts propose a ‘split FDR’ model, separating judicial evaluation from negotiation
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll