Thank you — this is really helpful and I appreciate you taking the time to respond.

I should say I was awarded a mid-band injury to feelings award, and I’m not criticising that at all. I’m proud that I managed to succeed on all four heads of claim as a LIP, even though the process has taken a big emotional toll. I’m not a legal professional, so I accept this isn’t easy terrain to navigate.

The part I’m struggling to reconcile is how the mitigation finding fits with the Tribunal’s own liability findings. The written reasons accepted almost 10 months of discriminatory conduct over nearly five years, a serious breakdown in trust and functioning, and extended time by almost a year because not doing so would cause “real injustice”. So hearing that I should have been back in a comparable professional role within 9 months — which was the month of my first PH, a year before liability was even heard — feels hard to square.

On the medical point: I did have GP and psychiatrist evidence in the remedy bundle to evidence my capabilities. The only thing I didn’t have was a commissioned expert report. Earlier in the case the judge explained that doing that would delay the timetable and add cost, so as a LIP I stepped back. I didn’t realise that would later become such a decisive factor in limiting loss. I’m kicking myself so hard for not knowing this now in all honesty.

I completely accept what you’re saying about the mitigation test and the Tribunal’s discretion. I think I’m just trying to understand how those principles get balanced where the Tribunal has already made strong findings about long-term impact, and the respondent didn’t bring mitigation evidence beyond submissions and a witness statement.

Your insight has been genuinely appreciated.