header-logo header-logo

11 December 2009 / Rad Kohanzad
Issue: 7397 / Categories: Features , Employment
printer mail-detail

Balance of payments

Rad Kohanzad examines the dents in the Norton Tool principle

The decision of the Court of Appeal in Stuart Peters v Bell [2009] EWCA Civ 938, [2009] All ER (D) 54 (Oct) provides that an employee who is constructively unfairly dismissed without notice has to give credit for earnings he earns during his notice period. An expressly dismissed employee does not.

This decision represents another nail in the coffin for the “notice pay” point in Norton Tool v Tewson [1972] ICR 501, [1973] 1 All ER 183. Are there any more such nails lurking? 

Section 123 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 is the statutory provision that dictates compensation in unfair dismissal cases, and is the same provision that was in existence at the time of Norton Tool, although within a different Act.

NIRC ruling

In apparent contradiction to the common law duty to mitigate your losses, the National Industrial Relations Court (NIRC)—now the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT)—in the case of Norton Tool, found that where employees are unfairly dismissed without notice they are

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

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen appoints senior legal PR and ex-government communications adviser, Liz Giles

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott boosts Southampton commercial property team with addition of partner Lee Edwards

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors announces four promotions

NEWS
The Attorney General, Ellie Reeves KC MP, and Solicitor General, Andy Slaughter KC MP, marked the 25th anniversary of Pro Bono Week by joining lawyers, charities, students and parliamentarians at events celebrating voluntary legal work
A polished legal defence may owe more to artificial intelligence than legal merit—and creditors risk paying the price in delay and expense
Witness evidence can be compromised by AI before a solicitor sees the draft, leaving safeguards focused on authorship incomplete
Should a conviction stand when a later ruling reveals that the law underpinning it was wrong? The answer exposes a clash between finality and justice
Possession claims are entering a new digital era, with procedural traps awaiting practitioners who assume familiar rules still govern every step
back-to-top-scroll