Excessive Tribunal Award overturned at EAT

In the recent case of Eddie Stobart Limited v Graham 2025, the Employment Appeal Tribunal overturned what they cited as a “manifestly excessive injury to feelings award” of £10,000 paid to the Claimant (or employee), substituting it with an award of £2,000.   This case is also helpful to employers as it serves to provide guidance on factors which are considered by the Tribunal in determining an appropriate injury to feelings award to a Claimant.

Ms Graham became pregnant and announced this to her employer, Eddie Stobart Limited, in October 2021.  By March 2022, they had made a determination that Ms Graham’s role was redundant and there were no suitable alternative roles to avoid her dismissal. Ms Graham subsequently raised a grievance by email concerning her selection for redundancy as a pregnant employee.  This email was blocked by the company’s firewall system, and so remained unread.

Ms Graham subsequently brought a claim in the Employment Tribunal alleging she had been unfairly dismissed and had suffered detriment and discrimination as a result of her pregnancy status.  The Employment Tribunal rejected most of Ms Graham’s claims, preferring the employer’s assertion that her redundancy was genuine and there were no suitable alternatives, resulting in no finding of discrimination.  However, the Tribunal upheld Ms Graham’s claim for pregnancy discrimination and injury to feelings arising from her employer’s non-dealing of her grievance. Ms Graham was awarded £10,000. The employer appealed, arguing that an award of £10,000 was excessive, especially as only her claim for the non-dealing of the grievance had succeeded in isolation.   

The Employment Appeal Tribunal made a determination that the originating Tribunal had awarded Ms Graham a “manifestly excessive” injury to feelings award.  They reduced the injury to feelings award from £10,000 to £2,000.  In reaching this decision, the EAT considered the leading case of Vento v Chief Commission of Police 2003 which comprises three bands of injury to feelings guidance, based upon the severity of the discrimination or detriment suffered by the Claimant.  These are as follows :  

• The top band applies where there has been a “lengthy campaign of discriminatory treatment or harassment”
• The middle band applies where the alleged acts of discriminatory treatment is not an isolated or one off occurrence but is less severe than a lengthy campaign  
• The lowest band applies in cases where there is an “isolated or one off occurrence of discriminatory treatment or harassment”

There are many variants and factual possibilities between the three bands and there is no “one size fits all” approach

Other relevant considerations which were given by the EAT in Ms Graham’s case against Eddie Stobart Limited included the following :

• Whether the discriminatory treatment complained of was “overt”.  The EAT determined that overt discrimination is more likely to cause distress and humiliation to the Claimant or employee
• Whether there exists any ridicule or exposure as part of the allegations of discrimination or harassment.  For example, if the discrimination is played out in front of colleagues may cause greater harm than discriminatory treatment occurring behind closed doors.  The EAT noted that this would be a considerable factor when determining compensable feelings due to humiliation.
• Whether the discrimination reflects of exposes an asymmetry of power, influence and information. This could extend to cases where there is a power imbalance in the workplace and where disciplinary threats or blackmail is exercised, creating worry and alarm for the Claimant or employee

It remains the case that the burden of proof remains on the Claimant or employee to show that his or her feelings have been injured due to their suffering of discriminatory treatment in the workplace.  Employees also need to be able to evidence to what extent such treatment affected them.  Parties’ can greatly assist the Tribunal by preparing the following

1.  A description of the injury suffered.  This may include an Impact Statement setting out details of the impact caused by the discriminatory treatment. 
2. Duration of the injury suffered.  A Claimant’s upset may be fleeting or it may be long-lasting.  Medical evidence and the obtaining of medical records can be helpful to establish this.
3. Effect on ability to work.  It may be relevant to consider the extent to which the Claimant’s self esteem was tied to their work life, which can differ subjectively from person to person.  By way of example, an evidenced wish to leave an enjoyable and fulfilling line of work due to discriminatory treatment may be able to provide the Tribunal with sufficient evidence to enable them to make a full assessment of the injury suffered.
4. Effect on personal life.  In some cases, it may be relevant to compare the Claimant’s life before and after the discrimination and where appropriate, a view from a family member may be helpful.

In the case of Ms Graham v Eddie Stobart Limited, the EAT determined that there had been no overt discrimination, the non dealing of the grievance was an isolated act and that there was only a “modest degree of upset” which was a “fleeting response” rather than longer lasting.  There had been no ridicule or disempowerment shown towards Ms Graham.   Furthermore, there was no evidence adduced suggesting that the injury endured by the Claimant went beyond the immediate experience of her grievance being ignored by her employer and no adverse effect had been suffered by Ms Graham either on her professional or personal life.

It is widely established that Employment Tribunals have the power to award a successful claimant or employee compensation for injury to feelings where a case has been brought citing allegations of a detrimental or discriminatory nature.   Such awards are intended to be compensatory in nature, fair to both parties.  They are certainly not intended to be a windfall nor should they be awarded at such a negligible figure which diminishes the severity of the act from which the injury to feelings claim is made.

The leading case of Vento v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police (No2) 2003 remains the leading precedent in establishing a fair level of Injury to Feelings, which sets out three bands of potential awards. 

Joanna manages and oversees the employment law team here at Pickerings Solicitors and in the event you have any queries or questions concerning any matters pertaining to employment law, please do not hesitate to get in touch by telephone 01827 317070 or by email at employment@pickerings-solicitors.com. We would be more than happy to assist