This case is solely for the benefit of employers who think that their ability to pay is relevant to assessing compensation should they lose a tribunal.  Unfortunately it's not.  I've quoted directly from the case below.  The full case can be read here: 

"The third ground advanced in this application relates to section 123. It is contended that the award to the Claimant was not just and equitable because it was substantial. I reject this as a proposition of law. In the calculation of loss for unfair dismissal the prime consideration is the loss suffered by the Claimant attributable to the action of the employer. The vehicle for the submission today is that if this award has to be paid, the business will go into liquidation.

That is not the correct approach to the assessment of an award for unfair dismissal, which does not pay attention to the ability of the employer to pay. There are places in the employment protection canon where ability to pay is a feature (see for example the costs regime). But in the assessment of damages for a statutory tort, the possibility that the employer will be in difficulty paying an award is not a relevant consideration. So of the three live issues argued before me today I form the opinion that none has a reasonable prospect of success. I dismiss the application. The appeal will be taken no further."

This is a useful case showing the factual circumstances that might warrant a departure from the usual procedures required under principles of natural justice in disciplinary and grievance hearings. Both the tribunal and the EAT were satisfied that the non-appearance of the claimants at the both grievance and disciplinary hearings was attributable to their unreasonable and obstructive behaviour, and that this did not affect the overall fairness of the decision to dismiss.

The Facts

The claimant and his wife worked in the NHS in accountancy roles.  Both were of Asian extraction. 

The Trust was going through a process looking at making efficiency savings.  The claimant came accross a document prepared as a result of this process and quickly raised a grievance.  A more detailed grievance followed.  Taken together the grievances suggested that other accountants wanted to break up the claimant's team and share the work among themselves and further that the suggestion was racially motivated against him and his wife. The claimant's wife also presented a grievance.

The Claimant was told her that her employer, CF Capital had been experiencing difficulties and a way to avoid redundancies was for staff to become self employed. The Claimant expressed an interest and requested detailed written terms of the move.  She eventually received an agency agreement on 23 December to effect the move to self-employed status and which stated her existing employment contract would be terminated on 31 December.  The Claimant changed her mind and phoned the managing director to say that she did not accept the agency agreement. On 5 January CF Capital phoned and then wrote to the Claimant, to say there had been a misunderstanding and that if she didn't wish to move to self-employment she could continue in employment.

The Claimant alleged that she had been dismissed and lodged claims of wrongful and unfair dismissal. CF Capital denied that the Claimant had been dismissed and said that she had resigned.