header-logo header-logo

14 September 2012
Issue: 7530 / Categories: Legal News , Disciplinary&grievance procedures , Employment
printer mail-detail

Cable Reduces Unfair Dismissal Cap

Employment lawyers have spoken out against today's proposals to reduce the £72,300 cap for unfair dismissal.

Business secretary Vince Cable announced today that the unfair dismissal cap is to be cut to either 12 months’ pay or a lower, as yet unspecified, amount.

Claimant lawyer Alison Humphrey, employment law solicitor at Russell Jones & Walker, said: “Slashing compensation award limits for unfair dismissal claims is another nail in the coffin for employee justice.
“Together with fees for issuing claims, and raising the eligibility threshold to two years’ service, these changes are likely to be a disincentive to bona fide claimants who have been treated genuinely unfairly.

At the same time, it will likely encourage a raft of other ‘day one rights’ claims, such as discrimination, which may add to complication and expense for employers.
 

“Compensation awards are calculated by reference to what an employee has actually lost as a result of the employer’s wrongdoing, so it in no way represents a windfall for employees. In circumstances where most awards don't reach the limit, it is difficult to see the justification for the move.”
 

Cable dropped an earlier proposal, made in Adrian Beecroft’s report in May, for compulsory no-fault dismissal. Instead, ‘settlement agreements’ could be introduced, under which employers and employees would come to an agreement in accordance with a code of practice to be drawn up by Acas.

Other reforms announced include proposals on how judges can reduce the number of preliminary hearings and dismiss weak cases more easily, and reforms to TUPE, which governs the transfer of teams of employees.
 

Ed Stacey, partner at PwC Legal, which acts for employers, warned the proposals risk increasing the number of discrimination and whistle-blowing claims.
 

“It is likely that the combination of increased fees for launching claims and the proposed reduction in awards for unfair dismissal claims will lead to a reduction in some of the low merit and low value claims,” he said.

“However, there is a risk that it will also incite employees to bolt on claims that remain uncapped such as claims for discrimination or whistle-blowing.”

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll