Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+

Personnel Today

Register
Log in
Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+

Personnel Today

Legal Q & A: Loss of the chance to claim unfair dismissal?

by Personnel Today 7 Oct 2003
by Personnel Today 7 Oct 2003

By Stephanie Paterson, assistant solicitor at Bevan Ashford

Q Could employees avoid the one year service requirement for unfair
dismissal by bringing ‘loss of chance’ claims?

A In 1999, in Raspin v United New Shops Ltd, the Employment Appeals
Tribunal (EAT) gave employees who were not eligible to claim unfair dismissal
the opportunity to pursue ‘loss of chance’ claims.

The EAT held in Raspin that where an employee is dismissed without notice
and in breach of a contractual disciplinary procedure, if the employee would
have otherwise accrued one year’s service and therefore qualified to claim
unfair dismissal, then in addition to claiming the notice monies owed, the
employee could also claim damages for the loss of the chance to claim unfair
dismissal.

This would potentially increase compensation for wrongful dismissal
significantly, as damages could include the equivalent to the compensation that
may have been awarded if the employee had been able to acquire one year’s
service and claim unfair dismissal.

Most employees have to be employed for one year before they qualify to claim
unfair dismissal. However, the Raspin decision meant it was extremely risky to
dismiss employees without giving proper notice under their contract, where they
were close to accruing one year’s service.

Q How has this now changed?

A In Virgin Net Ltd v Harper, the EAT reviewed a tribunal’s decision
regarding an employee who had been dismissed without notice. Had she received
her contractual notice, she would have acquired one year’s service and
qualified to bring a claim for unfair dismissal. Together with her wrongful
dismissal claim, she sought to recover damages for the loss of the right to
claim unfair dismissal, relying on Raspin.

In the first instance, the tribunal awarded the employee £25,000 – the
maximum payable for a breach of contract claim. Of this, £9,514 represented
three months’ notice pay, and the remainder represented what the tribunal considered
the employee would have been awarded if she been able to claim unfair
dismissal. The loss of a chance to claim increased the employee’s compensation
significantly.

Virgin Net appealed to the EAT. In its decision, the EAT referred to a
decision of the House of Lords dating back to 1909 (Addis v Gramophone Co Ltd),
which stated that damages for wrongful dismissal should be limited to the
earnings the employee would have received during the notice period.

The EAT also considered modern case law and specifically Johnson v Unisys
Ltd, which supported the principle that employees should not be able to
circumvent the restrictions set by Parliament on claiming unfair dismissal.

In other words, legislation clearly states that employees have to be employed
for at least one year (subject to certain exceptions) before they can bring a
claim for unfair dismissal, and that as this was the intention of Parliament,
this should be followed. The EAT followed this principle and overturned the
tribunal’s decision.

Q Will this change how employers deal with dismissals?

A Employers should still ensure they comply with the statutory notice
requirements when dismissing an employee who is approaching one year’s service
(and considering whether any of the exceptions to the one year rule apply).

The Employment Rights Act 1996 states that where an employee is dismissed
without receiving their statutory notice entitlement (one week for each year of
service up to a maximum of 12 weeks), the effective date of dismissal will be
the date on which that notice would expire (except in cases of gross
misconduct). This will apply for the purpose of assessing whether the employee
has acquired one year’s service.

This means that where an employee is dismissed without notice less than one
week before acquiring one year’s service, the effective date of dismissal will
be brought forward by the statutory notice period – ie, one week. That employee
would therefore be eligible to claim unfair dismissal.

Sign up to our weekly round-up of HR news and guidance

Receive the Personnel Today Direct e-newsletter every Wednesday

OptOut
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

The Virgin Net case is, however, good news for employers. Provided an
employer has taken the statutory notice period into account when deciding
whether to dismiss an employee who is approaching the one-year mark, employees
cannot now enhance their wrongful dismissal claim by referring to the loss of a
chance to claim unfair dismissal caused by the employer’s failure to give
proper contractual notice.

Subject to any further appeal in the Virgin Net case, employers should now
feel reassured that at worst, claims for wrongful dismissal would result in
payment of the employee’s salary and benefits during the notice period.

Personnel Today

Personnel Today articles are written by an expert team of award-winning journalists who have been covering HR and L&D for many years. Some of our content is attributed to "Personnel Today" for a number of reasons, including: when numerous authors are associated with writing or editing a piece; or when the author is unknown (particularly for older articles).

previous post
DWP funding to promote health and safety at work
next post
Age law could spark pensions meltdown

You may also like

Forward features list 2025 – submitting content to...

23 Nov 2024

Features list 2021 – submitting content to Personnel...

1 Sep 2020

Large firms have no plans to bring all...

26 Aug 2020

A typical work-from-home lunch: crisps

24 Aug 2020

Occupational health on the coronavirus frontline – ‘I...

21 Aug 2020

Occupational Health & Wellbeing research round-up: August 2020

7 Aug 2020

Acas: Redundancy related enquiries surge 160%

5 Aug 2020

Coronavirus: lockdown ‘phase two’ may bring added headaches...

17 Jul 2020

Unemployment to top 4 million as workers come...

15 Jul 2020

Over 1,000 UK redundancies expected at G4S Cash...

14 Jul 2020

  • 2025 Employee Communications Report PROMOTED | HR and leadership...Read more
  • The Majority of Employees Have Their Eyes on Their Next Move PROMOTED | A staggering 65%...Read more
  • Prioritising performance management: Strategies for success (webinar) WEBINAR | In today’s fast-paced...Read more
  • Self-Leadership: The Key to Successful Organisations PROMOTED | Eletive is helping businesses...Read more
  • Retaining Female Talent: Four Ways to Reduce Workplace Drop Out PROMOTED | International Women’s Day...Read more

Personnel Today Jobs
 

Search Jobs

PERSONNEL TODAY

About us
Contact us
Browse all HR topics
Email newsletters
Content feeds
Cookies policy
Privacy policy
Terms and conditions

JOBS

Personnel Today Jobs
Post a job
Why advertise with us?

EVENTS & PRODUCTS

The Personnel Today Awards
The RAD Awards
Employee Benefits
Forum for Expatriate Management
OHW+
Whatmedia

ADVERTISING & PR

Advertising opportunities
Features list 2025

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • Linkedin


© 2011 - 2025 DVV Media International Ltd

Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+