• Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
Call us now: 01243 836 840   [email protected]
Pure Employment Law
  • Who We Are
    • Nicola Brown
    • Peter Stevens
    • David Jones
    • Debbie Poole
    • Linda Nye
    • Brenda Cherry
  • For Employers
    • Advice on HR and People issues
    • Investigations, Hearings and Appeals
    • Restructuring and Redundancy
    • Defending Employment Tribunal Claims
    • Dismissal of Senior Executives
    • Contracts, Handbooks and Policies
    • Employment Law Training
  • For Employees
    • Settlement Agreements
    • Workplace Issues including Disciplinary and Grievance
    • Bringing an Employment Tribunal Claim
  • Employment Law Events
  • Legal Updates
  • Testimonials
  • Vacancies
  • Contact us
  • Search
  • Menu Menu

Polkey – Reducing compensation in unfair dismissal claims

21st October 2014

If an employee is dismissed, the normal remedy for them awarded by an Employment Tribunal is compensation.  Tribunals do have the power to order the employer to take the employee back on, but in practice this very rarely happens. We look at the factors taken into account in assessing compensation, and in particular a very recent case on the Polkey principle.

The compensation for unfair dismissal is made up of two parts.  The first is a basic award, which is calculated like statutory redundancy pay and is based on the employee’s length of service, age and earnings.  The second element is the compensatory award.  This is designed to compensate the claimant for the losses they suffer as a result of the unfair dismissal and in the vast majority of cases is capped at the lower of one year’s gross basic pay or £76,574.  However, the Claimant cannot just sit back and do nothing for a year and expect their former employer to pay them what they would have earned.  The Tribunal will expect them to seek to mitigate their loss and try to find alternative employment.  If at the date of the hearing the Claimant has not found another job, the Tribunal will assess whether it feels it reasonable for the employee to still be out of work, or whether they should have already found new work.  The Tribunal will also assess how far in the future to award losses – and this will depend on all sorts of factors such as the Claimant’s age, their skills, the job market in the area, and generally how employable they are.  It will then make an award, but that assessment of loss is in many cases just the starting point.

Employers can seek to persuade the Tribunal to reduce the compensation in a number of ways.  These include reducing the compensation to account for any payments already made to the Claimant, or in some cases showing that the Claimant had failed to follow the ACAS Code.  In appropriate cases, employers can also argue that the employee contributed to their own dismissal by their behaviour.  For example, if the employee was caught with his hand in the till and the employer simply dismissed without following a fair procedure, the dismissal is likely to be unfair, but the compensation (including the basic award) may well be reduced by up to 100%.

The other common way to reduce the potential compensation is the so called Polkey reduction.  This is named after the case of Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd [1987]. In this very important decision, the House of Lords held  that the compensatory award may be reduced or limited to reflect the chance that the claimant would have been dismissed in any event and that the employer’s procedural errors accordingly made no difference to the outcome.  Polkey itself was an unfair dismissal claim following on from a flawed redundancy procedure, and the House of Lords held that the Tribunal should assess what the chances were that the employee would have been dismissed in any event.  For example, if there is an entire closure of a business and no alternative roles, there is certainty that the employee would have lost their job in any event, and the fact that the employer failed to follow a fair procedure is likely to have made no difference to that.  In an example like this, the Tribunal is likely to limit the compensation to the period it would have taken for the employer to have followed a fair procedure.

In the very recent case of Contract Bottling Limited v Cave and MacNaughton [2014] the Employment Tribunal found that a redundancy process had been conducted unfairly and applied a 20% reduction to the compensatory award as it felt that was the percentage chance that the employees would have been dismissed in any event.  However, this reduction was not based on any evidence and or reasoning, and appeared to be plucked from the air.  On appeal, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) held that Tribunals must assess the evidence as to whether the employee would have been dismissed in any event, and look at the evidence which suggests that the dismissal would have been likely had a fair process been followed, as well as the evidence which suggests that the employee would not have been dismissed.  It is only after this process that the Tribunal should apply a percentage reduction if it feels it appropriate.

It is worth noting that the Polkey principle is not limited to redundancy situations.  For example, if there is a dismissal for misconduct with flawed disciplinary process, the Tribunal may look at whether the flawed process made any difference, and go on to assess what the chances were that the employee might be dismissed in any event.  Employers can argue for a Polkey reduction as well as contributory fault, and Tribunal can apply both.  In that event they will first apply Polkey, and then the contributory fault reduction.

This article only deals with some of the ways in which the compensation for unfair dismissal is assessed.  As always, it is sensible to take specialist advice on specific situations.

If you would like to talk through a situation you are dealing with, or if you need advice on any aspect of employment law, please contact any member of the Pure Employment Law team (01243 836840 or [email protected]).

Please note that this update is not intended to be exhaustive or be a substitute for legal advice. The application of the law in this area will often depend upon the specific facts and you are advised to seek specific advice on any given scenario.
Share this article
  • Share on Facebook
  • Share on Twitter
  • Share on WhatsApp
  • Share on LinkedIn
  • Share on Reddit
  • Share by Mail
https://www.pureemploymentlaw.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Pure-Employment-Law-logo.jpg 0 0 Nicola Brown https://www.pureemploymentlaw.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Pure-Employment-Law-logo.jpg Nicola Brown2014-10-21 15:56:152014-12-03 12:45:09Polkey – Reducing compensation in unfair dismissal claims

Join our mailing list

* = required field
Mailing Lists


Recent Legal Updates

  • Can long Covid be a disability? 29th June 2022
  • Employer unfairly counted disability-related absences when dismissing 29th June 2022
  • Did an Employment Tribunal correctly award an uplift for failure to follow the ACAS Code in a sham redundancy case? 29th June 2022
  • Without prejudice negotiations – what is unambiguous impropriety? 29th June 2022
  • Does referring to a man’s baldness at work amount to sexual harassment? 25th May 2022
Link to: Contact Us

Any questions? Why not get in touch!

Our advice is always given in plain English without any waffle, and we focus on providing practical solutions to our clients’ problems.

Contact us

LEGAL INFORMATION

Pure Employment Law | 1 Little London, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 1PH
[email protected] | Tel: 01243 836840

Pure Employment Law is the trading name of Pure Employment Law Limited, registered in England and Wales with company number 07134294 and whose registered office is 1 Little London, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 1PH. Pure Employment Law Limited is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority with registration number 533794. A list of the company’s directors is available for inspection at the registered office

DISCLAIMER

The information contained in this website is for general information purposes only. The information is provided by Pure Employment Law and while we endeavour to keep the information up to date and correct, we make no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, about the completeness, accuracy, reliability, suitability or availability with respect to the website or the information, products, services, or related graphics contained on the website for any purpose. Any reliance you place on such information is therefore strictly at your own risk.

Privacy Policy | Cookies Policy | Terms & Conditions | How to make a complaint | Sitemap

© Pure Employment Law 2022

Scroll to top

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies as defined in our cookie policy.

Accept Cookie Policy

Cookie and Privacy Settings



How we use cookies

We may request cookies to be set on your device. We use cookies to let us know when you visit our websites, how you interact with us, to enrich your user experience, and to customize your relationship with our website.

Click on the different category headings to find out more. You can also change some of your preferences. Note that blocking some types of cookies may impact your experience on our websites and the services we are able to offer.

Essential Website Cookies

These cookies are strictly necessary to provide you with services available through our website and to use some of its features.

Because these cookies are strictly necessary to deliver the website, refusing them will have impact how our site functions. You always can block or delete cookies by changing your browser settings and force blocking all cookies on this website. But this will always prompt you to accept/refuse cookies when revisiting our site.

We fully respect if you want to refuse cookies but to avoid asking you again and again kindly allow us to store a cookie for that. You are free to opt out any time or opt in for other cookies to get a better experience. If you refuse cookies we will remove all set cookies in our domain.

We provide you with a list of stored cookies on your computer in our domain so you can check what we stored. Due to security reasons we are not able to show or modify cookies from other domains. You can check these in your browser security settings.

Google Analytics Cookies

These cookies collect information that is used either in aggregate form to help us understand how our website is being used or how effective our marketing campaigns are, or to help us customize our website and application for you in order to enhance your experience.

If you do not want that we track your visit to our site you can disable tracking in your browser here:

Other external services

We also use different external services like Google Webfonts, Google Maps, and external Video providers. Since these providers may collect personal data like your IP address we allow you to block them here. Please be aware that this might heavily reduce the functionality and appearance of our site. Changes will take effect once you reload the page.

Google Webfont Settings:

Google Map Settings:

Google reCaptcha Settings:

Vimeo and Youtube video embeds:

Other cookies

The following cookies are also needed - You can choose if you want to allow them:

Privacy Policy

You can read about our cookies and privacy settings in detail on our Privacy Policy Page.

Privacy Policy
Accept settingsHide notification only