ARTICLE
16 July 2026

Does The Employment Tribunal Have The Power To Reduce The Acas Uplift?

d
didlaw

Contributor

Not just another law firm, the emphasis at didlaw has always been about providing an exceptional level of client service. This means clear and practical advice, explained in plain English. It means going the extra mile for our clients to find the right solution.

We started in 2008, focusing on helping people who were having difficulties around health and disability at work. By 2018, we were widely recognised as the UK’s leading disability discrimination lawyers.

In 2019 didlaw began a new chapter in its story. Our MD, Karen Jackson joined forces with employment barrister, Elizabeth George, to embark on the next ambitious phase of the firm’s journey.

The two women have expanded the firm’s offering to provide the same level of expertise but across all areas of employment and discrimination law. And they are committed to making didlaw a truly values-driven firm in everything that it does. You can read more about the values that drive them on our website.

The claimant was dismissed following an extended period of ill health. An Employment Tribunal found that her dismissal was unfair and she also succeeded in claims of disability discrimination and victimisation.
United Kingdom Employment and HR
Yavnik Ganguly’s articles from didlaw are most popular:
  • with Senior Company Executives, HR and Inhouse Counsel
  • with readers working within the Retail & Leisure industries

Yes, held the EAT in Sheikholeslami v The University of Edinburgh.

The claimant was dismissed following an extended period of ill health. An Employment Tribunal found that her dismissal was unfair and she also succeeded in claims of disability discrimination and victimisation. She was initially awarded a 25% uplift for failure to follow the Acas code. 25% is the maximum uplift award available. Later and following the overturning of earlier remedy decisions, Professor Sheikholelami’s compensation was recalculated at a much higher figure, more than £1.7m. At this point an ET decided to reduce the Acas uplift to 2.5%, a much smaller award.

The claimant appealed the reduction in the Acas uplift. She also appealed a separate issueon grossing up for tax.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) rejected the appeal in relation to the Acas uplift.

When the earlier remedy decision was partly set aside and sent back to the tribunal thetribunal was also entitled to take another look at the uplift percentage even though this wasnot a point in the appeal.

The reason the tribunal is entitled to revisit the uplift is because the size of an award isrelevant to the fair percentage of the uplift. A smaller percentage on a larger sum is stillcapable of being a fair outcome. The tribunal had correctly approached the issue and gaveadequate reasons for its decision. The EAT chose not to disturb that decision.

The EAT also upheld the tribunal’s handling of the tax. The University promise to cover any tax liability was recorded by the tribunal which enables the client to return to the tribunal again at a later date if the University does not honour this arrangement. It was therefore not necessary to gross up the award. Given that the tax liability on the award was uncertain the tribunal adopted a sensible practical approach.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

[View Source]

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More