header-logo header-logo

04 September 2008 / Jeremy Nixon
Issue: 7335 / Categories: Features , Employment
printer mail-detail

Managing the credit crunch

Part 2: Jeremy Nixon reviews the law in relation to mitigation of loss

It is well established that an individual who has been unfairly or wrongfully dismissed by their employer is under a duty to take reasonable steps to mitigate their loss. The question of loss is often a key battle ground in any litigation, particularly where the parties are discussing the possibility of a settlement. Frequently, employees have high expectations in terms of the amount they are likely to recover. On the other hand, employers often prefer to focus on the question of loss particularly where their case in relation to liability is not strong. The employer's primary aim here will be to inject what they regard as some realism into the employee's expectations.
General principles

A claimant in a wrongful or unfair dismissal case is required to give credit for any sums received following their dismissal either by way of social security payments or earnings. Further, the claimant cannot recover damages for any losses which he could reasonably have avoided. The duty

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

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

Ken Fowlie, chairman of Stowe Family Law, reflects on more than 30 years in legal services after ‘falling into law’

Jackson Lees Group—Jannina Barker, Laura Beattie & Catherine McCrindle

Jackson Lees Group—Jannina Barker, Laura Beattie & Catherine McCrindle

Firm promotes senior associate and team leader as wills, trusts and probate team expands

Asserson—Michael Francos-Downs

Asserson—Michael Francos-Downs

Manchester real estate finance practice welcomes legal director

NEWS
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
From cat fouling to Part 36 brinkmanship, the latest 'Civil way' round-up is a reminder that procedural skirmishes can have sharp teeth. NLJ columnist Stephen Gold ranges across recent decisions with his customary wit
Digital loot may feel like property, but civil law is not always convinced. In NLJ this week, Paul Schwartfeger of 36 Stone and Nadia Latti of CMS examine fraud involving platform-controlled digital assets, from ‘account takeover and asset stripping’ to ‘value laundering’
Lasting powers of attorney (LPAs) are not ‘set and forget’ documents. In this week's NLJ, Ann Stanyer of Wedlake Bell urges practitioners to review LPAs every five years and after major life changes
back-to-top-scroll