The EAT has given judgment in the case of Tim Arrow & Sons v Olney, which is authority for the proposition that where a Tribunal award includes an uplift, if the respondent pays the claimant a sum to cover the award before Judgment, the uplift is calculated on the outstanding sum due, rather than the total amount of the award.
The Learned Judge was not happy with the result:
'Certainly it goes against all instinct to allow a party to get away from the statutory uplift merely by paying the sum due at the last possible moment before the award is made. But we are stuck with the words of Section 33(3):
"It must, subject to subsection four, increase any award which it makes to the employee by 10% and may, if it considers it just and equitable in all circumstances to do so, increase it by a further amount, not so as to make it a total increase of more than 50%."'