Report comment

@Hotep, my reading is that it's rather clear (from the rejection of labour's amendment that the money should go to the victim) that the intent is that the money will go to 'everyone else bar the victim.' A punitive measure rather than an attempt to accept aggravation of damages etc.

Whilst I think in many cases this is great as MANY employers clearly can pay these sums immediately and simply choose not to out of spite... I do worry that there ought to be some flexibility here in terms of available finances. The application of a penalty in some cases here may just be the start of a spiral.

You're forced to prioritise this over other debts so as to avoid the 50% penalty, so you now default on other debts instead, which begins to make the business look insolvent, discouraging the bank from assisting, and pushing away investment and other businesses alike. You do less work due to the bad reputation you're getting, so it gets harder to repay debts. All could have been avoided if you'd been able to say at the point of the award 'Here are my cash flow forecasts. Can I have 8 months please? Or I could pay monthly over the next 10 months if that pleases the victim?' Very few people in the world are truly unreasonable, yet we insist upon devising unreasonable systems in order to 'head them off at the pass', without realising that we're stampeding over the vast majority of people who would flourish were it not for the draconian regulation they're suffering...