Insurer RSA is to fight the €1.25 million (£900,000) award to the former chief executive of its Irish operation over his dismissal.
The company described last month's record-breaking ruling in favour of Philip Smith as astonishing and confirmed plans to go to court in a bid to have it overturned.
He resigned in November 2013 and claimed he had been made a "fall guy" after RSA discovered issues in the claims and finance functions of the business in Dublin.
The company said at the time that reserves for claims were inadequate and €262m (£186m) had to be pumped into the subsidiary.
Mr Smith successfully challenged his departure from the insurance firm at the Employment Appeals Tribunal (EAT) in a case for constructive dismissal.
RSA said it fundamentally disagrees with the judgment and is seeking redress through the courts.
Derek Walsh, RSA Group general counsel, said the company believes the EAT decision demonstrates a serious misunderstanding of and a failure to grasp the key issues.
"It did not recognise the enormity of its finding that Mr Smith was aware of the reserving practices within RSA Ireland which involved a potential breach of Central Bank regulations.
"We are astonished by the amount of the award made by the Tribunal which RSA believes is utterly inconsistent with that crucial finding and creates a dangerous precedent."
RSA denies an internal inquiry into the Irish subsidiary had been pre-determined.
The company said the employment tribunal failed to appreciate the critical role of reserving for claims in the insurance business; RSA's obligations as a regulated financial institution; and its place in a publicly-listed group of companies.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article