Law Weblog

Dunnachie v Kingston-upon-Hull City Council CA (2003)

Saturday 14 February 2004 at 5:16 pm | In News | Post Comment

[Statutory interpretation- meaning of “Loss”]
Mr Dunnachie had been constructively and unfairly dismissed.  He had been subjected to a prolonged campaign of harassment, so claimed additional compensation for distress etc.  For 30 years the law had been that compensation for “Loss” meant pecuniary loss (for example loss of earnings) (the current legislation the Employment Rights Act 1996, s 123).

Held: “A phoenix of truly just and equitable compensation might now rise from the ashes of the hoped-for evolution of the common law of wrongful dismissal”. In the early days of the new legislation the National Industrial Relations Court, under its first (and only) president Sir John Donaldson, decided inNorton Tool Co Ltd v Tewson [1972];that this formula embraced only quantifiable pecuniary losses.

C won.
Comment: This case is almost certain to go to the House of Lords
Full report here