Finance director dismissed after refusing to relocate to India: redundancy claim fails
A finance director who refused to engage in redundancy consultation and alleged whistleblowing lost his unfair dismissal claim. The tribunal found a genuine redundancy situation and no protected disclosures.
2 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a finance director by EngineF Operating Ltd from 1 October 2017 until dismissal on 17 April 2020.
- The respondent faced financial difficulties and decided to relocate operations to India, making the claimant's UK-based role redundant.
- The claimant alleged eight protected disclosures, but the tribunal found none were qualifying disclosures.
- The claimant refused to engage in the redundancy consultation process, calling it a sham.
- The tribunal dismissed all claims: unfair dismissal, automatic unfair dismissal for whistleblowing, detrimental treatment, and indirect discrimination.
- The claimant was ordered to pay £20,000 in costs for pursuing claims with no reasonable prospect of success.
Timeline
-
Employment commenced
Claimant started as finance director and statutory director of EngineF Operating Ltd.
-
First redundancy warning
Mr Allcock emailed claimant about potential redundancy due to financial difficulties, but the reorganisation did not proceed.
-
Reorganisation announced
Mr Allcock informed claimant of a decision to reorganise EngineF Operating, warning of potential changes including redundancy.
-
Neyber bid prepared
Claimant prepared bids to purchase Neyber's assets, despite his resistance.
-
Redundancy consultation meeting
Claimant was given a letter stating his role was at risk of redundancy; he disputed the content and refused to engage.
-
Email account suspended
Claimant's email was suspended after he forwarded sensitive emails to his personal account.
-
Dismissal confirmed
Mr Allcock confirmed the claimant's dismissal by reason of redundancy; claimant was placed on garden leave.
-
Appeal lodged
Claimant appealed against dismissal.
-
Appeal hearing offered
Mr Allcock offered a video appeal hearing; claimant did not respond.
-
Judgment issued
Employment Tribunal dismissed all claims and later ordered claimant to pay £20,000 costs.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was unfairly dismissed, whether he was automatically unfairly dismissed for making protected disclosures, whether he suffered detrimental treatment for whistleblowing, and whether he was indirectly discriminated against on grounds of race.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed all claims brought by the claimant against EngineF Operating Ltd.
- The redundancy was genuine: the company faced financial difficulties and decided to relocate operations to India, making the claimant's UK-based role redundant.
- The claimant refused to engage in the redundancy consultation process, calling it a sham. The tribunal found the respondent acted reasonably in dismissing him.
- None of the eight alleged protected disclosures qualified as such under the law.
- The indirect discrimination claim failed because the requirement to relocate to India was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim (financial reorganisation).
- The claimant was ordered to pay £20,000 in costs for pursuing claims with no reasonable prospect of success.
Lessons & takeaways
- If you are at risk of redundancy, engage in the consultation process – refusing to participate can undermine your unfair dismissal claim.
- To bring a whistleblowing claim, the disclosure must be a 'qualifying disclosure' that tends to show a specific failure, such as a breach of legal obligation or danger to health and safety.
- A genuine redundancy situation, even if contested, can be a fair reason for dismissal if the employer follows a reasonable procedure.
- Indirect discrimination claims based on relocation requirements may be justified if the employer has a legitimate business need and the requirement is proportionate.
This case shows what happens when an employee refuses to engage in a redundancy process and instead pursues multiple legal claims that the tribunal finds have no merit. The finance director, who had been with the company for about two and a half years, was dismissed when his employer decided to relocate its operations to India due to financial difficulties.
The redundancy and consultation
The company informed the claimant in January 2020 that his role was at risk. He was offered a consultation meeting but disputed the content of the letter and refused to engage, calling the process a sham. The tribunal found that the redundancy situation was genuine – the company needed to cut costs and move operations abroad. The claimant's refusal to participate meant the employer could not explore alternatives, and the dismissal was procedurally fair.
Whistleblowing and discrimination claims
The claimant alleged eight protected disclosures, ranging from concerns about tax fraud to lack of due diligence in a business acquisition. The tribunal found none of these were qualifying disclosures under the law – they either did not involve a relevant failure or were not made in good faith. The indirect discrimination claim, based on the requirement to relocate to India, failed because the tribunal accepted that the requirement was a proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aim of financial reorganisation.
What the losing side could have done differently
The claimant could have engaged in the consultation process, which might have led to a different outcome or at least strengthened his unfair dismissal claim. Instead, his refusal to participate and his pursuit of weak claims resulted in a costs order of £20,000.
Why this matters
This case is a reminder that redundancy processes must be genuine and fairly conducted, but employees also have a responsibility to engage. It also highlights the high bar for whistleblowing claims – not every complaint about a colleague's actions counts as a protected disclosure. For employers, it shows that a well-documented redundancy process can withstand challenges even when the employee refuses to cooperate.
Similar cases
Research assistant's redundancy claim fails: funding cessation was genuine reason
A research assistant with 12 years' service lost her claim for unfair dismissal, whistleblowing detriment and disability discrimination after the tribunal found her redundancy was genuinely due to loss of funding.
CEO made redundant after protected disclosures: procedural unfairness in rejecting reduced-hours alternative
A CEO with 7 years' service was unfairly dismissed when his employer rejected his proposed reduced-hours alternative without proper consideration. The tribunal found the redundancy process procedurally flawed but applied a 75% Polkey deduction.
Redundancy claim struck out for non-disclosure: costs of £6,853 awarded
A senior manager's unfair dismissal claim was struck out after he failed to disclose documents about his new job. The tribunal ordered him to pay £6,853 in costs for unreasonable conduct.
Staff nurse's constructive dismissal claim over whistleblowing fails
A tribunal has dismissed all claims brought by a Band 5 staff nurse against Lewisham and Greenwich NHS Trust, including constructive dismissal, whistleblowing detriment, and discrimination on grounds of race, age, and religion.