Vento v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police

Factual and Procedural Background

The case concerns an appeal and cross appeal arising from compensation awarded for sex discrimination to the Appellant, a former probationary police officer, by the Employment Tribunal against the Respondent Chief Constable of a police force. The Employment Tribunal initially awarded a total of £257,844 compensation, including £165,829 for loss of future earnings based on a 75% chance of a full police career, £74,000 for non-pecuniary loss (injury to feelings including aggravated damages and psychiatric damage), and interest of £18,015.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal overturned parts of these awards, remitting the calculation of future loss of earnings for rehearing due to an error of law regarding the 75% chance assumption, and reduced the injury to feelings award from £65,000 (including £15,000 aggravated damages) to £30,000. The Appellant appealed against the decision on future loss of earnings, and the Chief Constable cross appealed against the level of compensation for injury to feelings.

The factual background includes the Appellant's career ambition to join the police, joining as a probationary constable in 1995, separation and divorce, and experiencing sex discrimination by colleagues which contributed to clinical depression and eventual dismissal on grounds unrelated to discrimination. The Employment Tribunal found that the Appellant would have completed a full police career but with limited prospects, likely restricted to clerical work later.

Procedurally, the Appellant presented claims of unfair dismissal and sex discrimination in 1998. Liability was established against the Chief Constable, who was vicariously liable for discriminatory acts by officers. The remedies hearing resulted in the compensation awards challenged on appeal.

Legal Issues Presented

1. What is the correct approach to calculating compensation when unlawful discrimination results in loss of the chance of a career?
2. What is the appropriate level of compensation for non-pecuniary loss such as injury to feelings, and how should double recovery be avoided when compensation for psychiatric injury and aggravated damages is also awarded?
3. What is the scope and role of the Court of Appeal in reviewing decisions of the Employment Appeal Tribunal on compensation assessments?

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Employment Tribunal's assessment of a 75% chance of completing a full police career was reasonable and supported by the Appellant’s determination and circumstances.
• The Court of Appeal should respect the Employment Appeal Tribunal's substituted award of £30,000 for injury to feelings, and interference should only occur if the award is perverse.
• The Appellant emphasized the impact of discriminatory treatment on her career and mental health, justifying the compensation awarded.

Respondent's Arguments

• The 75% chance figure was irrational and unsupported by statistical evidence showing only 9% of women police officers served over 18 years.
• The Employment Tribunal failed to properly consider vicissitudes such as the Appellant’s depressive illness, sick leave, and substandard work during probation, not all attributable to discrimination.
• The award for injury to feelings at £30,000 (including aggravated damages) was still manifestly excessive, especially given the undisturbed £9,000 award for psychiatric injury.
• The Respondent cited relevant case law and Judicial Studies Board guidelines indicating much lower awards are appropriate for comparable non-pecuniary losses.
• The Court of Appeal should have the power to review and reduce awards substituted by the Employment Appeal Tribunal if they are excessive.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court addressed the two main issues: compensation for loss of chance of a career and compensation for non-pecuniary loss including injury to feelings.

On future loss of earnings, the Court recognized the difficulty in forecasting the chance of career continuation, emphasizing the need to consider statistical evidence and individual circumstances. The Employment Appeal Tribunal had erred in setting the chance at 75%, vastly exceeding statistical norms (9% for women serving over 18 years). However, the Court found that the Employment Tribunal's reasons for departing from statistics—namely the Appellant's determination, social changes including family friendly policies, and inability to have more children—were sufficient and not perverse. The Court therefore restored the 75% figure, allowing the Appellant's appeal.

Regarding compensation for injury to feelings, the Court acknowledged the inherent difficulties in assessing non-pecuniary loss, which lacks objective measurement and relies on precedent and reasonableness. The Court reviewed relevant case law and guidelines, including the Judicial Studies Board's recommendations, noting that the original awards were excessive and out of line with comparable cases and general damages for personal injury.

The Court concluded that the total award for non-pecuniary loss should be reduced to £32,000, comprising £18,000 for injury to feelings, £5,000 for aggravated damages, and £9,000 for psychiatric injury (the latter undisputed). This reduction reflects the need for consistency, avoidance of double recovery, and proportionality, without diminishing the seriousness of the discrimination suffered.

The Court also clarified the role of the Court of Appeal in reviewing Employment Appeal Tribunal decisions, holding that it exercises a second appellate jurisdiction focused on errors of law in the Employment Tribunal’s decision, and is not bound by the Employment Appeal Tribunal’s substituted awards if they are erroneous.

Finally, the Court provided guidance on bands of compensation for injury to feelings: top band (£15,000–£25,000) for the most serious cases; middle band (£5,000–£15,000) for serious cases; and lower band (£500–£5,000) for less serious or isolated incidents, emphasizing flexibility and the need to consider overlap with other heads of damage.

Holding and Implications

The Court ALLOWED the Appellant's appeal on the issue of future loss of earnings, restoring the Employment Tribunal's original assessment of a 75% chance of completing a full police career. It ALSO ALLOWED the Chief Constable's cross appeal to the extent of reducing the compensation for injury to feelings and aggravated damages from the Employment Appeal Tribunal’s substituted figure of £30,000 to £23,000, maintaining the undisputed £9,000 for psychiatric injury, making a total of £32,000 for non-pecuniary loss.

The direct effect is to increase the compensation for future financial loss to the Appellant while reducing the compensation for non-pecuniary loss to a level consistent with established guidelines and precedent. No new precedent was set beyond the clarification of principles and guidance on assessing compensation for injury to feelings and the appellate role in Employment Tribunal appeals.