{"id":65,"date":"2004-02-14T17:16:20","date_gmt":"2004-02-14T17:16:20","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"2004-02-14T17:16:20","modified_gmt":"2004-02-14T17:16:20","slug":"dunnachie-v-kingston-upon-hull-city-council-ca-2003","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.sixthform.info\/lawblog\/?p=65","title":{"rendered":"Dunnachie v Kingston-upon-Hull City Council CA (2003)"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><strong>[Statutory interpretation-&nbsp;meaning of &#8220;Loss&#8221;]<\/strong><br \/>Mr Dunnachie had been constructively and unfairly dismissed.&nbsp; He had been subjected to a prolonged campaign of harassment, so claimed additional compensation for distress etc.&nbsp; For 30 years the law had been that compensation for &#8220;Loss&#8221; meant pecuniary loss (for example loss of earnings) (the current legislation the Employment Rights Act 1996, s 123). <\/p>\n<p><strong>Held<\/strong>: &#8220;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&#8221;. 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. <\/p>\n<p><strong>C won.<br \/>Comment:<\/strong> This case is almost certain to go to the House of Lords<br \/>Full report <a href=\"http:\/\/www.courtservice.gov.uk\/View.do?id=2280\">here<\/a> <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>[Statutory interpretation-&nbsp;meaning of &#8220;Loss&#8221;]Mr Dunnachie had been constructively and unfairly dismissed.&nbsp; He had been subjected to a prolonged campaign of harassment, so claimed additional compensation for distress etc.&nbsp; For 30 years the law had been that compensation for &#8220;Loss&#8221; meant pecuniary loss (for example loss of earnings) (the current legislation the Employment Rights Act 1996, [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-65","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-news"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.sixthform.info\/lawblog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/65","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.sixthform.info\/lawblog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.sixthform.info\/lawblog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.sixthform.info\/lawblog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.sixthform.info\/lawblog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=65"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.sixthform.info\/lawblog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/65\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.sixthform.info\/lawblog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=65"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.sixthform.info\/lawblog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=65"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.sixthform.info\/lawblog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=65"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}