Description
In this case, the EAT considered whether an employee’s compensation should be reduced to give credit for PIP payments he had received where the employee had been eligible for PIP due to the employer’s wrongdoing. Listen along to find out what happened!
Visit www.indicator.co.uk to explore our product range, or connect with us on social media:
Hosted on Ausha. See ausha.co/privacy-policy for more information.
Transcription
Today, in the Indicator HR and Employment Law podcast, we're discussing the judgment in the case of Foat and Department of Work and Pensions, in which the Employment Appeal Tribunal considered whether a claimant's compensation should be reduced on account of them receiving personal independence payments, PIP, a type of state benefit. In this case, F had resigned from his civil service employment and successfully claimed for disability discrimination and constructive unfair dismissal. The tribunal awarded him almost £400,000 in compensation. When calculating this sum, the tribunal reduced the amount payable by the employer on account of the PIP that F had received because of a health breakdown occurring in the relevant period. Both parties appealed different aspects of the remedy judgment. This podcast focuses on F's appeal relating to the reduction in his compensation on account of the PIP he had received. Rejecting his appeal on this point, the Employment Appeal Tribunal held that the Tribunal had not erred in reducing F's compensation award on account of the PIP received. The Employment Appeal Tribunal held that the health breakdown suffered by F, for which he had received PIP, was a consequence of the Employer's unlawful act, but for that unlawful act he would not have received the PIP. There was no rule of law that provided that a state benefit provided for care costs could only be set off against a claim for damages for care costs. In practical terms, this means employers can ask a tribunal to reduce any compensation award on account of any PIP the employee has received, that is consequentially linked to its unlawful actions. The Employment Appeal Tribunal's decision regarding offsetting PIP essentially gives the employer, which has acted unlawfully, credit for the PIP payments payable by the state to ensure there is no double recovery by the claimant. It is important to note that the Employment Appeal Tribunal's decision only relates to PIP received as a consequence of the employer's unlawful acts. In suitable cases, employers should ask claimants to confirm whether they are in receipt of PIP, when this was awarded and why. If a claimant refuses to provide this information voluntarily, the employer can ask the Employment Tribunal for a case management order requiring the claimant to share this information. Look out for further episodes in this series to stay up to date on all things HR and employment law related.
Description
In this case, the EAT considered whether an employee’s compensation should be reduced to give credit for PIP payments he had received where the employee had been eligible for PIP due to the employer’s wrongdoing. Listen along to find out what happened!
Visit www.indicator.co.uk to explore our product range, or connect with us on social media:
Hosted on Ausha. See ausha.co/privacy-policy for more information.
Transcription
Today, in the Indicator HR and Employment Law podcast, we're discussing the judgment in the case of Foat and Department of Work and Pensions, in which the Employment Appeal Tribunal considered whether a claimant's compensation should be reduced on account of them receiving personal independence payments, PIP, a type of state benefit. In this case, F had resigned from his civil service employment and successfully claimed for disability discrimination and constructive unfair dismissal. The tribunal awarded him almost £400,000 in compensation. When calculating this sum, the tribunal reduced the amount payable by the employer on account of the PIP that F had received because of a health breakdown occurring in the relevant period. Both parties appealed different aspects of the remedy judgment. This podcast focuses on F's appeal relating to the reduction in his compensation on account of the PIP he had received. Rejecting his appeal on this point, the Employment Appeal Tribunal held that the Tribunal had not erred in reducing F's compensation award on account of the PIP received. The Employment Appeal Tribunal held that the health breakdown suffered by F, for which he had received PIP, was a consequence of the Employer's unlawful act, but for that unlawful act he would not have received the PIP. There was no rule of law that provided that a state benefit provided for care costs could only be set off against a claim for damages for care costs. In practical terms, this means employers can ask a tribunal to reduce any compensation award on account of any PIP the employee has received, that is consequentially linked to its unlawful actions. The Employment Appeal Tribunal's decision regarding offsetting PIP essentially gives the employer, which has acted unlawfully, credit for the PIP payments payable by the state to ensure there is no double recovery by the claimant. It is important to note that the Employment Appeal Tribunal's decision only relates to PIP received as a consequence of the employer's unlawful acts. In suitable cases, employers should ask claimants to confirm whether they are in receipt of PIP, when this was awarded and why. If a claimant refuses to provide this information voluntarily, the employer can ask the Employment Tribunal for a case management order requiring the claimant to share this information. Look out for further episodes in this series to stay up to date on all things HR and employment law related.
Share
Embed
You may also like
VAT planning using the option to tax
Consultation on new rights for workers on zero/low hours contracts due to come into force next year
Was a tribunal entitled to view training materials as providing key evidence of work requirements in an equal pay claim?
Did a worker, who failed a drug test due to taking medically prescribed cannabis, suffer disability discrimination?
Description
In this case, the EAT considered whether an employee’s compensation should be reduced to give credit for PIP payments he had received where the employee had been eligible for PIP due to the employer’s wrongdoing. Listen along to find out what happened!
Visit www.indicator.co.uk to explore our product range, or connect with us on social media:
Hosted on Ausha. See ausha.co/privacy-policy for more information.
Transcription
Today, in the Indicator HR and Employment Law podcast, we're discussing the judgment in the case of Foat and Department of Work and Pensions, in which the Employment Appeal Tribunal considered whether a claimant's compensation should be reduced on account of them receiving personal independence payments, PIP, a type of state benefit. In this case, F had resigned from his civil service employment and successfully claimed for disability discrimination and constructive unfair dismissal. The tribunal awarded him almost £400,000 in compensation. When calculating this sum, the tribunal reduced the amount payable by the employer on account of the PIP that F had received because of a health breakdown occurring in the relevant period. Both parties appealed different aspects of the remedy judgment. This podcast focuses on F's appeal relating to the reduction in his compensation on account of the PIP he had received. Rejecting his appeal on this point, the Employment Appeal Tribunal held that the Tribunal had not erred in reducing F's compensation award on account of the PIP received. The Employment Appeal Tribunal held that the health breakdown suffered by F, for which he had received PIP, was a consequence of the Employer's unlawful act, but for that unlawful act he would not have received the PIP. There was no rule of law that provided that a state benefit provided for care costs could only be set off against a claim for damages for care costs. In practical terms, this means employers can ask a tribunal to reduce any compensation award on account of any PIP the employee has received, that is consequentially linked to its unlawful actions. The Employment Appeal Tribunal's decision regarding offsetting PIP essentially gives the employer, which has acted unlawfully, credit for the PIP payments payable by the state to ensure there is no double recovery by the claimant. It is important to note that the Employment Appeal Tribunal's decision only relates to PIP received as a consequence of the employer's unlawful acts. In suitable cases, employers should ask claimants to confirm whether they are in receipt of PIP, when this was awarded and why. If a claimant refuses to provide this information voluntarily, the employer can ask the Employment Tribunal for a case management order requiring the claimant to share this information. Look out for further episodes in this series to stay up to date on all things HR and employment law related.
Description
In this case, the EAT considered whether an employee’s compensation should be reduced to give credit for PIP payments he had received where the employee had been eligible for PIP due to the employer’s wrongdoing. Listen along to find out what happened!
Visit www.indicator.co.uk to explore our product range, or connect with us on social media:
Hosted on Ausha. See ausha.co/privacy-policy for more information.
Transcription
Today, in the Indicator HR and Employment Law podcast, we're discussing the judgment in the case of Foat and Department of Work and Pensions, in which the Employment Appeal Tribunal considered whether a claimant's compensation should be reduced on account of them receiving personal independence payments, PIP, a type of state benefit. In this case, F had resigned from his civil service employment and successfully claimed for disability discrimination and constructive unfair dismissal. The tribunal awarded him almost £400,000 in compensation. When calculating this sum, the tribunal reduced the amount payable by the employer on account of the PIP that F had received because of a health breakdown occurring in the relevant period. Both parties appealed different aspects of the remedy judgment. This podcast focuses on F's appeal relating to the reduction in his compensation on account of the PIP he had received. Rejecting his appeal on this point, the Employment Appeal Tribunal held that the Tribunal had not erred in reducing F's compensation award on account of the PIP received. The Employment Appeal Tribunal held that the health breakdown suffered by F, for which he had received PIP, was a consequence of the Employer's unlawful act, but for that unlawful act he would not have received the PIP. There was no rule of law that provided that a state benefit provided for care costs could only be set off against a claim for damages for care costs. In practical terms, this means employers can ask a tribunal to reduce any compensation award on account of any PIP the employee has received, that is consequentially linked to its unlawful actions. The Employment Appeal Tribunal's decision regarding offsetting PIP essentially gives the employer, which has acted unlawfully, credit for the PIP payments payable by the state to ensure there is no double recovery by the claimant. It is important to note that the Employment Appeal Tribunal's decision only relates to PIP received as a consequence of the employer's unlawful acts. In suitable cases, employers should ask claimants to confirm whether they are in receipt of PIP, when this was awarded and why. If a claimant refuses to provide this information voluntarily, the employer can ask the Employment Tribunal for a case management order requiring the claimant to share this information. Look out for further episodes in this series to stay up to date on all things HR and employment law related.
Share
Embed
You may also like
VAT planning using the option to tax
Consultation on new rights for workers on zero/low hours contracts due to come into force next year
Was a tribunal entitled to view training materials as providing key evidence of work requirements in an equal pay claim?
Did a worker, who failed a drug test due to taking medically prescribed cannabis, suffer disability discrimination?
