A TEST case over the amount of compensation payable for injured feelings in cases of religious discrimination resulted in a compensation award being halved in the Court of Appeal in Belfast yesterday.
The three judges also ruled that in such cases there is no power to award additional compensation for aggravated damages.
The rulings were in a reserved judgment in the case of a Catholic ex- soldier who was discriminated against by the Northern Ireland Police Authority when it failed to appoint him as an armourer.
A Fair Employment Tribunal awarded the man Pounds 10,000 for injury to feelings and a further Pounds 2,500 for aggravated damages.
The authority appealed and by a two-to-one majority the judges decided to halve the man's award for injury to his feelings.
The judges were unanimous that the Pounds 2,500 for aggravated damages should be set aside as the tribunal had no power to make such an award.
The Lord Chief Justice, Sir Robert Carswell, said the tribunal's view was that the feelings of victims of religious or political discrimination in Northern Ireland merited higher compensation than victims of sex or race discrimination in Great Britain.
"I am unable to accept the validity of this approach," said Sir Robert. Discrimination is equally pernicious, whether it is on religious, sexual or racial grounds, and those who suffer from it on any of these grounds must feel equally distressed and hurt.
The Lord Chief Justice said the man involved was well qualified and was not appointed, whereas less qualified Protestants were successful. He had been compensated for his loss of earnings (for which he received Pounds 10,139) and was entitled to a proper award for the injury to his feelings.
"In my judgment, the sum of Pounds 10,000 is considerably too high on the facts of the case," he said. "I would substitute the sum of Pounds 5,000".
Mr Justice Campbell agreed. Lord Justice McCollum disagreed. He said that while Pounds 10,000 was high it did not appear to him that the tribunal had failed in its duty to award an amount corresponding to damages in a successful High Court claim.
"While recognising that the approach taken to the question of damages by the majority of the court is practical and pragmatic, I take the view that it is not in our power to follow the course proposed," he said.