Claimant v University of Edinburgh
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found that the respondent failed to comply with its obligation to make reasonable adjustments. This was established in the earlier liability hearing and formed the basis for the remedy award including bankruptcy costs flowing from the discrimination.
The tribunal confirmed that the respondent discriminated against the claimant. The discrimination caused economic losses including loss of income which ultimately led to bankruptcy in 2017.
The respondent was found to have victimised the claimant. This unlawful act contributed to the claimant's economic losses that were addressed at the remedy hearings in July 2023 and March 2024.
Facts
This is a reconsideration application following a remedy judgment dated 10 April 2024. The claimant, a professor, succeeded in claims of disability discrimination, failure to make reasonable adjustments, and victimisation. The tribunal awarded compensation including bank costs, NHS charges, and bankruptcy costs. The claimant applied for reconsideration of the bankruptcy costs award, seeking to rely on new evidence (an invoice from Quartermile Estates Ltd dated 20 April 2012) and advancing a new argument that costs of approximately £60,000 were triggered by termination of employment rather than bankruptcy.
Decision
The tribunal refused the application for reconsideration and confirmed its earlier judgment dated 10 April 2024. The tribunal found that the claimant could reasonably have obtained the new evidence before the remedy hearing in March 2024, and in any event the invoice did not prove that legal expenses from 2012 were incurred as a consequence of bankruptcy in 2017. The tribunal also rejected the new argument about costs flowing from termination rather than bankruptcy, finding it came too late and that the respondent was entitled to finality in litigation.
Practical note
Reconsideration applications based on new evidence will be refused where the evidence could reasonably have been obtained before the original hearing, and tribunals will resist attempts to advance entirely new legal arguments at the reconsideration stage in the interests of finality.
Award breakdown
Adjustments
80% chance that had the respondent not discriminated against the claimant, she would have returned to remunerative employment and the bankruptcy costs would not have been incurred. Therefore 20% reduction applied to bankruptcy costs.
Legal authorities cited
Case details
- Case number
- 4102702/2012
- Decision date
- 31 January 2025
- Hearing type
- reconsideration
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Sector
- —
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Professor
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister