In SBH Windermere Limited & Anor v Nunns, the claimant successfully brought several complaints of harassment against the respondent. At the remedy stage, the tribunal awarded the claimant compensation of over 35,000, which included an element for future losses calculated by reference to the claimant's wages less the Universal Credit he would receive.
Shortly after the remedy judgment, the claimant contacted the tribunal explaining that, once the compensation was paid into his bank account, his savings would exceed the 16,000 threshold for Universal Credit eligibility. He would therefore lose his monthly Universal Credit payments of 1,100.
The tribunal reconsidered its judgment and increased the total compensation to just over 43,000 to account for this loss.
The respondents appealed, arguing that if the tribunal was going to revisit its award on the basis of the claimant's Universal Credit position, it should also have considered whether the claimant was entitled to claim other benefits. They had expressly raised this argument during reconsideration, but the tribunal had not addressed it.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) considered two grounds of appeal.
It rejected the argument that the tribunal should not have reconsidered its judgment. The EAT regarded the Universal Credit point as fresh material drawing an argument to the tribunal’s attention, rather than necessarily fresh evidence. Even if the rules governing fresh evidence applied,...
A Wixom, Michigan, business accused of making false statements to obtain a loan has agreed to pay a settlement of just over $1.5 million after it was sued by the federal government, according to th...