header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
27 July 2012 / Michael Salter , Chris Bryden
Issue: 7524 / Categories: Features , Discrimination , Employment
printer mail-detail

The early bird...

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
bird_4

Chris Bryden & Michael Salter discuss the correct approach to apportioning discrimination awards

In a previous article, the authors discussed the impact of the Employment Appeal Tribunal’s decision in Brennan and others v Sunderland City Council UKEAT/0286/11/SM (“An unsatisfactory state of affairs?”, NLJ, 22 June 2012, p 821). In this case, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) found that there was no jurisdiction for an employment tribunal to entertain claims for contributions between discriminating respondent parties. At the end of that article we posited that there was a risk that individual employee respondents could face when a substantial award has been made by the tribunal.

Real consequences

This potential risk has very real consequences for those advising claimants at the earliest stages of litigation. One of the authors has recently been involved in a case where the impact of Brennan was felt a few weeks after the ET1 was presented. In this matter, an employee had presented their ET1 without the assistance of a lawyer. The ET1 was,

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
London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

Fieldfisher partner appointed president as LSLA marks milestone year

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Firm promotes two lawyers to partnership across employment and family

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Firm promotes five lawyers to partnership across key growth areas

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll