Ms A Portosi

Case Summary

This is an Employment Appeal Tribunal decision concerning the remedy phase of an unfair dismissal case. The EAT upheld the Employment Judge's findings that the claimant had not failed to mitigate her losses, rejecting the respondent's appeal on the grounds that the EJ was entitled to assess when the claimant's failure to mitigate crystallised, taking into account her personal circumstances including caring responsibilities and assurances given to her new employer ASUGI. The claimant's cross-appeal was also dismissed.

The EAT found that the Employment Judge did not err in her analysis of mitigation. The EJ was entitled to assess losses at a later date (July 2022) rather than August 2021 when the claimant received the Goldreich opportunity, because the claimant had given assurances to ASUGI that she would remain in her employment for at least one year, was caring for her mother in Italy, and had only been in post for 27 days. The burden rested on the respondent to prove the claimant acted unreasonably, not for the claimant to show she acted reasonably.

Use these claim-type pages to compare this decision with other published tribunal cases, outcome patterns, and visible award data.

• •Whether claimant failed to mitigate financial loss following unfair dismissal
• •At what point would claimant have returned from furlough to full pay
• •Whether compensatory award should be increased by 25% for unreasonable failure to comply with ACAS Code of Conduct
• •Reasonableness of claimant's decision not to pursue Goldreich employment opportunity
• •Date on which failure to mitigate would have crystallised

Judgment approved by the court MacAusland Design Ltd v Portosi © EAT 2026 Page 1 [2026] EAT 51 Neutral Citation Number: [2026] EAT 51 Case No: 2022-000827-DXA EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL Rolls Building Fetter Lane, London, EC4A 1NL Date: 10 March 2026 Before: JUDGE KEITH - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Between: MACAUSLAND DESIGN LIMITED Appellant - and – MS A PORTOSI Respondent - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Rad Kohanzad (instructed by Croner Group Limited) for the Appellant Patrick Tomison (instructed by Thompsons Solicitors) for the Respondent Appeal and Cross-Appeal Hearing date: 10 March 2026 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - JUDGMENT Judgment approved by the court MacAusland Design Ltd v Portosi © EAT 2026 Page 2 [2026] EAT 51 SUMMARY Unfair dismissal The Employment Judge did not err in her analysis of the claimant’s attempts to mitigate her losses, following her dismissal. On the specific facts of this case, the EJ was entitled to assess losses not on the basis of an immediate reduction in those losses once the possibility of alternative employment arose, but at a later date, after a period during which the appellant had given assurances that she would not leave the employment of a less-remunerated, new employer. What had to be proved was that the employee acted unreasonably. The employee did not have to show that she acted reasonably. The EJ’s conclusions were not perverse. Judgment approved by the court MacAusland Design Ltd v Porto…