National Express Unfair Dismissal Ruling: Compensation Calculation Remitted
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has remitted the calculation of the compensatory award in an unfair dismissal case involving Ms J Davidson and National Express Limited.
• public
National Express Faces Re-Evaluation of Compensation in Unfair Dismissal Case
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has ruled on an appeal in the case of Davidson v National Express Limited, concerning the unfair dismissal of Ms J Davidson, a coach driver, by National Express.
Ms Davidson was dismissed after failing an alcohol test at work. While the Employment Tribunal initially found the dismissal unfair due to a flawed appeal process, it also applied significant reductions to her compensation based on a Polkey assessment (likelihood of dismissal anyway) and contributory conduct. An ACAS code uplift was also applied.
Grounds of Appeal
Ms Davidson appealed the tribunal's decision, raising several challenges to its reasoning, including:
- Whether the tribunal's findings regarding her admission of alcohol consumption were adequately explained.
- Whether the dismissing manager was unduly influenced by prior discussions.
- The tribunal's own conclusion about whether she had consumed alcohol.
- The reasonableness of National Express's alcohol policy.
These challenges, framed as Meek challenges, related to the fairness of the initial hearing.
EAT Decision: Partial Success for Appellant
The EAT dismissed most of Ms Davidson's grounds of appeal, upholding the tribunal's decisions on Polkey reduction, contributory conduct, and wrongful dismissal. However, the EAT found that the tribunal had erred in its assessment of Ms Davidson's underlying loss for the compensatory award.
The tribunal had limited its calculation of future loss to the period until Ms Davidson reached age 65, deeming it "just and equitable." However, the EAT emphasised that the tribunal was required to assess the actual future loss sustained as a result of the dismissal, extending to her stated intention to work until age 70. The EAT cited Software 2000 Ltd v Andrews and Contract Bottling Ltd v Cave in its reasoning.
Remittal for Fresh Consideration
The EAT has remitted the calculation of the underlying loss for the compensatory award back to the Employment Tribunal for fresh consideration. Other aspects of the tribunal's decision remain undisturbed.
Ms Davidson was represented by Saul Margo, instructed by Ronald Fletcher Baker LLP. National Express Limited was represented by Steve Peacock of Weightmans LLP.
Read the entire judgement here: Ms J Davidson v National Express Limited [2025] EAT 151
