Geophysicist awarded £340k after being pushed out for younger staff
A 62-year-old Leading Project Geophysicist was unfairly dismissed and subjected to age discrimination after the company's majority shareholder repeatedly called for his replacement with younger employees. The Reading tribunal awarded £340,212.80.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #age-discrimination
- #victimisation
- #unfair-dismissal
- #breach-of-contract
- #acas-code-uplift
- #replacement-with-younger-staff
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a Leading Project Geophysicist from September 2017 to 30 November 2021.
- The claimant was aged 62 at dismissal and had a clean disciplinary record with no negative feedback.
- The majority shareholder, Nikolai Baransky, repeatedly emailed the managing director about replacing the claimant with younger employees.
- The managing director, Nigel Buxton, did not challenge the ageist comments and acted on them.
- The claimant was told he was being made redundant, but the real reason was age discrimination.
- After the claimant raised age discrimination concerns, he was subjected to aggressive meetings and summarily dismissed.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began employment as a Geophysical Imaging Supervisor (later Leading Project Geophysicist).
-
NBa proposes sacking claimant
Nikolai Baransky emailed Nigel Buxton suggesting sacking the claimant and others, citing poor performance on a project.
-
NBa suggests replacing claimant with younger staff
NBa emailed Buxton about replacing the claimant and another employee with staff aged about 40.
-
NBa references claimant's age
NBa emailed that the claimant is 'far over 60 years old' and should be replaced.
-
NBa calls claimant 'a pensioner'
NBa emailed Buxton saying the claimant is 'not a young person' and 'a pensioner', and to find a reason to let him go.
-
NBa wants 'younger and more active experts'
NBa emailed about replacing the claimant with younger experts.
-
Claimant told employment will end
Buxton told the claimant he was being made redundant due to a downturn.
-
Claimant raises age discrimination
Claimant emailed Buxton expressing concerns he was being singled out because of his age.
-
Aggressive meeting
Buxton was aggressive towards the claimant after receiving the email.
-
Second aggressive meeting
Buxton shouted at the claimant, trying to intimidate him to drop his complaint.
-
Summary dismissal
Claimant was summarily dismissed without notice.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant's dismissal was for a fair reason (redundancy or capability) or whether it was direct age discrimination, and whether the claimant was victimised for raising a complaint about age bias.
The outcome
The tribunal found that the claimant was unfairly dismissed and subjected to direct age discrimination and victimisation. The company's majority shareholder had repeatedly emailed the managing director insisting on replacing the claimant with younger staff, calling him 'a pensioner' and 'far over 60 years old'. The managing director did not challenge these comments and acted on them, telling the claimant he was being made redundant but later dismissing him summarily after he raised age discrimination concerns.
Compensation breakdown:
- Basic award: £3,264
- Financial loss: £147,853
- Injury to feelings: £20,000
- ACAS code uplift (25%): £42,779.25
- Interest: £7,477.22
- Tax adjustment: £118,839.33
- Total: £340,212.80
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers must never make decisions based on age stereotypes or preferences for younger staff, even if the comments come from senior shareholders.
- If an employee raises a discrimination complaint, it is unlawful to treat them less favourably or dismiss them for doing so.
- A dismissal purportedly for redundancy or capability will be scrutinised closely if there is evidence of discriminatory motive, especially if the process is not genuine.
- Failing to follow the ACAS Code of Practice on disciplinary and grievance procedures can lead to a 25% uplift on compensation.
When 'redundancy' masks age discrimination
This case shows how a supposedly neutral redundancy process can be a cover for unlawful age discrimination. The claimant, a 62-year-old Leading Project Geophysicist with four years' service and a clean record, was told he was being made redundant due to a downturn. But emails from the company's majority shareholder told a different story: he repeatedly urged the managing director to replace the claimant with 'younger and more active experts', calling him 'a pensioner' and 'far over 60 years old'. The managing director did not challenge these comments and instead acted on them, eventually dismissing the claimant summarily after he raised age discrimination concerns.
What the employer could have done differently
The company could have avoided this outcome by taking the shareholder's comments seriously and rejecting them. Instead, the managing director failed to challenge the ageist remarks and went along with the plan. When the claimant raised his concerns, the company should have investigated properly and not subjected him to aggressive meetings. A fair process, free from discriminatory influence, might have led to a different result. The tribunal also noted that the company did not follow the ACAS Code of Practice, leading to a 25% uplift on compensation.
Why this matters for similar claims
This case is a stark reminder that discrimination can come from the top, and that employers must ensure decision-makers are not influenced by ageist views. For employees, it shows the importance of raising concerns early and keeping evidence of discriminatory comments. The substantial award — over £340,000 including interest and tax adjustments — reflects the serious financial and emotional impact of age discrimination and victimisation.
Similar cases
Tutor unfairly dismissed after employer mistakenly accepted resignation
A tutor with three years' service was unfairly dismissed when her employer wrongly believed she had resigned. The tribunal awarded £1,499.54 for breach of contract and unlawful deduction of wages.
Unfair dismissal and unpaid notice: a procedural failure that cost £8,000
A former employee was unfairly dismissed and denied proper notice pay and annual leave. The tribunal awarded £8,000 after finding the employer failed to follow a fair process.
Age-related harassment and unpaid wages: former employee awarded £37,873
A former employee was awarded over £37,000 after colleagues repeatedly called him 'old man' and 'grandpa', and the company made unauthorised deductions from his wages and failed to pay holiday pay.
Unfair dismissal: pudding company penalised for ignoring ACAS code and failing to provide written terms
A former employee of The Bowness Pudding Company Limited was unfairly dismissed and awarded £11,934.76 after the company failed to follow the ACAS Code of Practice and did not provide a written statement of employment terms.