0370 270 6000

already registered?

Please sign in with your existing account details.

need to register?

Register to access exclusive content, sign up to receive our updates and personalise your experience on brownejacobson.com.

Privacy statement - Terms and conditions

Forgotten your password?

Sheriff v Kline Tuggs

7 September 2000
The issues

Henderson v Henderson – Just and Equitable. Whether the Claimant who had brought a claim in one tribunal should be allowed to bring a claim in another tribunal.

The facts

The Claimant has brought proceedings in an Employment Tribunal for unlawful racial discrimination under the Race Relations Act 1976.

The Claimant alleged that he had been subjected to racial harassment, abuse, intimidation and bullying at the hands of the Master of the “Anglian Salvor” when he was employed as an Engineer on that vessel.

The case was adjourned and part heard and a settlement was made. The Respondent in the Tribunal proceedings did not admit liabilty but paid £4,000.00 in full and final settlement of all claims for which an Industrial Tribunal had jurisdiction.

The Appellant then commenced a claim in the Norwich County Court for damages and personal injury caused by the racial discrimination and abuse of treatment. The claim was almost in the identical form of that which had been before the Tribunal and was struck out on the basis that it had been brought in breach of the earlier agreement of settlement.

The decision

Under the 1976 Act there was an exclusive jurisdiction granted to the Employment Tribunal in respect of discrimination. It could order damages to be paid that could have been ordered by any County Court with the added condition that it had to be just and equitable to make the order.

The principle was that the Claimant was entitled to be compensated in the Employment Tribunal for loss and damage actually sustained as a result of the statutory tort (see Ministry of Defence v Wheeler 1998).

Both Tribunal and County Court could therefore award damages for personal injury caused by the tort. In which Court the claim was to be brought was a question of causation of the injury. In this case the claim was for an injury which had been sustained by the Appellant arising out of his employment and in respect of which the Tribunal had jurisdiction. The settlement agreement therefore applied and the claim could not be re-litigated.

Public policy dictated that claims that could or should have been litigated in one Tribunal should not be allowed to be litigated in another. The Appellant could have brought his whole claim for compensation in the Employment Tribunal but had not done so.

Focus on...

Legal updates

Gosden and another v Halliwell Landau and another [2021] EWHC 159 (Comm)

This claim addressed the question, of when the date for assessment of damages in cases of negligence should be determined and shows that when appropriate the Courts will depart from the default position.


Legal updates

Assessing the scope of employers liability – Chell v Tarmac

These were the opening remarks of Mr Justice Martin Spencer when handing down his Judgment in the recent case of Andrew Chell v Tarmac Cement and Lime Limited [2020] EWHC 2613, the latest in a series of appeals dealing with the scope of vicarious liability.


Legal updates

Non-payment of insurance premiums during the Coronavirus pandemic

The forced closure of many businesses as a result of the Coronavirus pandemic has had a huge impact on the nation’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Recent reports from the Office for National Statistics state that the economy was 25% smaller in April than it was in February this year.


Legal updates

Reinstatement for property damage losses – when does it apply?

The Court of Appeal has recently considered the correct test for measuring the indemnity for property damage losses and has provided useful guidance on whether an insured needs to intend to reinstate the property to its pre-loss condition.


The content on this page is provided for the purposes of general interest and information. It contains only brief summaries of aspects of the subject matter and does not provide comprehensive statements of the law. It does not constitute legal advice and does not provide a substitute for it.

Mailing list sign up

Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.

Sign up