Employment Appeal Tribunal Remits Remedy Decision in Case Against Khans Solicitors
The EAT has ordered a partial retrial regarding aggravated damages and sick pay compensation in a discrimination case against a firm of solicitors.
• public
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has partially allowed an appeal by Khans Solicitors regarding a remedy judgment, instructing that the case return to the original Employment Tribunal for redetermination on two specific points.
The appeal centred on a remedy judgment following findings of unfair dismissal, disability discrimination, and sex-related harassment. While the bulk of the £109,020.64 award remains intact, the EAT identified legal errors concerning an award of £5,000 for aggravated damages and £672.56 for sick pay compensation.
Insufficient Reasoning for Aggravated Damages
His Honour Judge James Tayler noted that the Employment Tribunal failed to adequately explain the basis for its award of aggravated damages. The judgment indicated that the lower tribunal appeared to focus on the respondent being a firm of solicitors, which the EAT clarified is not a valid basis for a punitive award.
The EAT emphasised that aggravated damages must be compensatory. They require clear evidence of an additional aggravating factor that caused the claimant increased injury, beyond what was already covered by the award for injury to feelings. Because the lower tribunal did not demonstrate an understanding of this causation requirement, the EAT ruled that the matter must be reconsidered.
Sick Pay Calculation Under Review
The second ground of appeal involved compensation for the difference between statutory sick pay and full pay. The EAT found that the original tribunal provided no explanation for calculating this sum over a four-week period.
The EAT has directed the same Employment Tribunal to assess the likelihood of the claimant being at work during that period, absent the discrimination. The tribunal must then calculate compensation based on a proper assessment of those chances, rather than a flat estimation.
The EAT also reminded parties that an appeal does not automatically stay an order for payment. In the absence of a stay, claimants may seek enforcement of unpaid portions of an award through the County Court.
Read the entire judgment here: Khans Solicitors v Kaiser [2026] EAT 137
