JERSEY’S significantly increased discrimination compensation limits can be applied to cases involving acts that took place before the law changed, a tribunal has ruled in what is believed to be the first detailed judgment on the issue.
The decision came as the Employment and Discrimination Tribunal awarded £9,750 to the family of a disabled school pupil after finding that the child had been discriminated against through failures to provide differentiated homework and assistive technology.
In a judgment published this week, the tribunal considered for the first time whether changes introduced by the Employment and Discrimination (Jersey) Amendment Law 2025 should apply retrospectively.
The amendments, which came into force last July, increased the maximum compensation available for hurt and distress in discrimination cases from £5,000 to £30,000.
Lawyers acting for the claimant in the case – whose identity is legally protected to protect the anonymity of the child involved – argued that the new limits should apply even though the discriminatory acts occurred before the law changed, while the Education Minister contended that the previous £5,000 cap should remain in force.
The tribunal sided with the claimant. Referring to established principles against retrospective legislation, the panel said there was “just enough of an indication” that the States intended the higher compensation limits to apply to claims where the issue of remedy had not yet been determined.
The judgment noted that, while legislation is generally presumed not to apply retrospectively, the changes did not create any new rights or obligations.
“The respondent’s conduct would have been discriminatory whether or not the amendment was in force at the time the conduct took place,” the tribunal said. “The amendment simply changes the maximum amount of compensation that the tribunal can award in relation to that conduct.”
A representative for the claimant had argued that, because three separate acts of discrimination had been upheld, the tribunal could award up to £90,000 – but suggested that £47,500 would be an “appropriate amount”.
The Education Minister argued that any award should be between £500 and £1,000.
The tribunal instead awarded £750 for a missed learning opportunity, £3,000 for failing to provide differentiated homework and £6,000 for failing to provide assistive technology, making a total award of £9,750.
Although it found the discrimination claims to be well-founded, the tribunal said there had not been a campaign of discrimination.
Instead, it accepted that those involved had been “acting in what they believed to be the best interests of the claimant” and described the failures as an “error of judgment” or “misjudgment”.
As well as ordering compensation, the tribunal made a series of recommendations requiring the school to improve its support for the pupil, including providing homework in an accessible format, ensuring appropriate assistive technology is available during lessons and meeting the child to discuss whether they had been upset by the shortcomings, with a verbal apology if considered appropriate.
