Can voluntary redundancy form the basis of an unfair dismissal claim?
A recent Employment Appeal Tribunal case demonstrates some of the issues that may arise in a voluntary redundancy situation.Read more
The claimant, who had only been in the UK for a few months when he was knocked from his bicycle by the insured driver, sustained multiple injuries, including fractures to his wrist, ribs, clavicle, pelvis, femur, medial tibial plateau, left tibia and fibula. In addition, he would also require plastic surgical free flap reconstruction to an ankle wound which would leave scarring.
There was also evidence of psychological damage and a possible head/brain injury, which resulted in significant care needs and long-term absence from work being contended.
The claimant’s injuries were described by his orthopaedic expert as “truly devastating” and liability was apportioned on a 70/30 basis in the claimant’s favour.
Past loss and future care were claimed at £1.6m, with the possible future loss of earnings needing to be confirmed.
Although it was likely that the claimant’s injuries would put him at a disadvantage in the future when looking for employment on the open labour market, this would be compounded further by his extremely short pre-accident work history (given his age) and poor understanding of the English language.
Upon careful marshalling and forensic consideration of medical evidence, Paul collated all of the key records and obtained further medical reports, uncovering issues with the claimant’s obligation to mitigate his loss.
Paul was able to persuade the court to refuse permission for pain management evidence, although it was apparent that funding further rehabilitation was going to be necessary, which would prolong the case and significantly increase the cost for our insurer client.
However, before the case could progress further, Paul carefully analysed the economics and realities of the claim and made a Part 36 offer in the sum of £170k net of the liability apportionment.
The claimant accepted the offer and the case was settled, representing a potential saving to our insurer client easily in excess of £1.6m.
Scroll to next section
Scroll back to the top