Injury to Feelings: Graham -v- Eddie Stobart [2025] EAT 14

Injury to feelings awards are made by the Employment Tribunals (“ET”) in circumstances whereby an employee has suffered distress as a result of an act of discrimination by their employer. The award is also made in other claims such as where an employee has suffered a detriment for whistleblowing. The amount of the award is at the discretion of the ET and depends on the evidence and facts of each case using the Vento guidelines, which increase every year.

The current Vento Guidelines in respect of claims presented on or after 6 April 2024, are as follows:

• Lower band of £1,200 to £11,700 (less serious cases);
• Middle band of £11,700 to £35,200 (cases that don’t merit an award in the upper band);
• Upper band of £35,200 to £58,700 (the most serious cases); and
• Exceptional cases exceeding £58,700.

The recent case of Graham -v- Eddie Stobart [2025] EAT 14

Background

Ms Graham was one of nine planners at Eddie Stobart’s Newhouse depot (“the Company”).

On 20 October 2021, Ms Graham learned that she was pregnant and informed the Company the next day. In March 2022, the Company decided to go through a restructure which ceased its planning function in Scotland. The restructure involved the redundancy of nine planners from the Newhouse depot but created four new transport shift manager roles. As the consultation period began, Ms Graham asserted her right to be offered suitable alternative employment during her maternity leave in preference to other employees in accordance with Regulation 10 of the Maternity and Parental Leave etc. Regulations 1999.

During the consultation period, the Company took the view that the transport shift manager roles were not suitable alternative roles and required Ms Graham to attend a competitive interview.

On 12 April 2022, while the redundancy process was ongoing, Ms Graham commenced her maternity leave. The next day, she attended her interview for one of the transport shift manager roles but was unsuccessful.

Ms Graham submitted a grievance on 26 April 2022 and two days later she attended her final consultation meeting when she was given notice of the termination of her employment by reason of redundancy. The Company did not deal with her grievance.

Her employment ended on 26 May 2022.

Employment Tribunal decision

Ms Graham issued proceedings against the Company for automatic unfair dismissal on the basis that the transport shift manager was a suitable vacancy that should have been given to her in priority of others who were not on maternity leave. Ms Graham also asserted detriment because of the failure to deal with her grievance, pregnancy/maternity discrimination and victimisation.

The ET unanimously ruled that Ms Graham had not been unfairly dismissed and rejected her victimisation claim but upheld her claim of detrimental treatment and pregnancy/maternity discrimination insofar that the Company had failed to take steps to deal with her grievance.

The ET awarded Ms Graham a £10,000 injury to feelings award, which in the year that her claim was presented, was the bottom of the middle Vento band.

Employment Appeal Tribunal (“EAT”) decision

The Company appealed the injury to feelings award made by the ET asserting that Ms Graham had given minimal evidence that her feelings had been injured. They argued that the extent of her injury was that she was “shocked” and “upset.”

Upholding the Company’s appeal, the EAT ruled that the ET had erred in law by awarding Ms Graham a “manifestly excessive” amount of compensation and further by failing to adequately explain why it awarded the amount it did. Substituting the ET’s award, the EAT gave a significantly lower award of £2,000 plus interest.

The EAT set out some helpful pointers in assessing an injury to feelings award:

• Claimant’s description of their injury – what is the claimant saying in their evidence?

• Duration of the consequence of any injury – has the claimant explained how they are feeling at the remedy hearing? How long are the feelings expected to last?

• Effect on past, current and future work – is there any evidence that the claimant wishes to leave the employer?

• Effect on personal life or quality of life – has a third party given evidence to the adverse impact on the claimant’s personal life?

The EAT also provided helpful guidance for banding injury to feelings in circumstances whereby the claimant’s evidence is lacking. The EAT stated that:

• Overt discrimination is more likely to cause distress and humiliation because the victim has understood the motivation at the time to be discriminatory;

• Discrimination played out in front of colleagues or for others to see may well cause greater harm; and

• Disciplinary threats that create worry, or in exclusion that causes isolation. Such features may again provide a reasoned basis for inferred more serious injury to feelings.

For further information or to discuss a potential employment law or discrimination claim, please contact our specialist employment solicitors on 0207 3950 5234 or info@rllaw.co.uk. We are ranked as a ‘Leading Firm’ in the Legal 500 and Chambers and Partners independent guides to the UK Legal Profession.

3 February 2025