All items: Remedies

• expand

  M v Ministry of Defence [1997] IT/55542/95 (1 report relating to this case)

  • Over £65,000 awarded for sexual harassment

    Date:

    1 September 1997

    In M v The Ministry of Defence a Manchester industrial tribunal (Chair: E R Donnelly) awards compensation of £65,377, including £25,000 for injury to feelings, personal injury and loss of congenial employment, to a former Wren who endured almost four years of sexual harassment, causing her to develop a depressive illness leading to her discharge from the Navy.

• expand

  Macmillan v Edinburgh Voluntary Organisations Council [1995] IRLR 536 EAT (2 reports relating to this case)

  • Unintentional indirect discrimination and EC law

    Date:

    1 November 1995

    In MacMillan v Edinburgh Voluntary Organisations Council (16 June 1995) EOR64D, the EAT holds that the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 does not allow an award of compensation for unintentional indirect discrimination. However, the EAT hints that the statutory bar on such an award does not accord with the Equal Treatment Directive.

  • Sex discrimination: No compensation for unintentional indirect discrimination

    Date:

    1 October 1995

    In MacMillan v Edinburgh Voluntary Organisations Council, the EAT holds that the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, when properly construed in the context of the Equal Treatment Directive, does not allow an industrial tribunal to award compensation for unintentional indirect sex discrimination.

• expand

  Marshall v Southampton and South-West Hampshire Area Health Authority (No.2) [1988] IRLR 325 IT (1 report relating to this case)

  • Tribunal holds SDA compensation limit infringes EEC law

    Date:

    1 September 1988

    In Marshall v Southampton and South-West Hampshire Area Health Authority (No 2) (21.6.88) EOR21D, a Southampton industrial tribunal awards the complainant £19,405 compensation, holding that the maximum compensation obtainable in an employment case under the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 (SDA), currently £8500, does not provide an adequate remedy as required by Article 6 of the EEC Equal Treatment Directive.

• expand

  Marshall v Southampton and South-West Hampshire Area Health Authority (No.2) [1990] IRLR 481 CA (1 report relating to this case)

  • EEC law does not override SDA compensation limit

    Date:

    1 November 1990

    In Marshall v Southampton and South-West Hampshire Area Health Authority (No.2) (31 July 1990) EOR34A, the majority of the Court of Appeal holds that Article 6 of the EEC Equal Treatment Directive, which requires Member States to provide adequate remedies for discrimination, does not have direct effect so that it cannot be relied upon to award compensation in excess of the limit laid down by the Sex Discrimination Act 1975.

• expand

  Marshall v Southampton and South-West Hampshire Area Health Authority (No.2) [1993] IRLR 445 ECJ (2 reports relating to this case)

  • Compensation limit unlawful

    Date:

    1 September 1993

    In Marshall v Southampton and South-West Hampshire Area Health Authority (No.2) (2 August 1993) EOR51A, the European Court of Justice rules that it is contrary to European Community law for a fixed upper limit to be placed on the compensation which can be awarded for the loss and damage suffered as a result of sex discrimination.

  • Discriminatory retirement age

    Date:

    1 May 1986

    In Marshall v Southampton and South-West Hampshire Area Health Authority (26.2.86) EOR7E, the European Court of Justice rules that compulsory retirement of men and women at different ages contravenes the EEC Equal Treatment Directive.

• expand

  McConomy v Croft Inns Ltd [1992] IRLR 561 HC (1 report relating to this case)

  • Ban on man's earring unlawful

    Date:

    1 March 1993

    In McConomy v Croft Inns Ltd (10 July 1992) EOR48C, the Northern Ireland High Court holds that it was unlawfully discriminatory for a public house to bar a man for wearing an earring.

• expand

  McLaughlan v House of Fraser (Stores) Ltd [2004] ET/1805792/02 (1 report relating to this case)

  • Case digest

    Date:

    1 January 2005

    Hilary Slater, consultant with Cobbetts solicitors, provides a round-up of employment tribunal decisions on discrimination.

• expand

  McLaughlin v London Borough of Southwark [1998] IT/7575/95 (1 report relating to this case)

  • £1/4 million sex bias award

    Date:

    1 June 1998

    In McLaughlin v London Borough of Southwark a London South industrial tribunal (Chair: J Warren) awards over £222,000 compensation (plus over £11,000 interest) to a senior council employee who was discriminated against because of her sex.

• expand

  Michalak v Mid Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust ET/1810815/08 (1 report relating to this case)

  • Race and sex discrimination: former NHS doctor with post-traumatic stress disorder awarded almost £4.5m

    Date:

    16 December 2011

    This employment tribunal has awarded a former NHS doctor one of the largest ever discrimination payouts after she was subjected to a sustained campaign of sex and race discrimination. The tribunal found the NHS trust and three senior managers, one of whom was the HR director, jointly and severally liable for compensation.

• expand

  Ministry of Defence v Cannock and others [1994] IRLR 509 EAT (2 reports relating to this case)

  • Sex discrimination: Guidance on compensation for discrimination

    Date:

    1 October 1994

    The EAT's judgment in Ministry of Defence v Cannock and others contains several points of general importance on the calculation of compensation for discrimination, notably the approach to be taken to the assessment of future loss of earnings.

  • Guidance on pregnancy dismissal awards

    Date:

    1 September 1994

    In Ministry of Defence v Cannock and others (29 July 1994) EOR57E, the EAT sets out guidance as to the principles to be applied by industrial tribunals in assessing compensation for servicewomen who were dismissed because of their pregnancy contrary to European Community law.