Garden centre staff dismissed without warning: redundancy consultation failure
Four employees of Adrian Hall Ltd were unfairly dismissed when the garden centre closed without any consultation. The tribunal awarded £500 each for loss of continuity.
2 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #redundancy
- #lack-of-consultation
- #immediate-closure
- #liquidation
- #polkey-reduction
- #continuity-loss
Key facts
- The claimants were dismissed without prior warning when the garden centre closed immediately.
- The reason for dismissal was redundancy due to the company's liquidation.
- No consultation or discussion took place with any claimant before dismissal.
- The company was in severe financial difficulty with a deficiency over £1.7 million.
- The claimants received statutory redundancy payments from the Insolvency Service.
- The tribunal awarded £500 each for loss of continuity of service.
Timeline
-
Dismissal
The claimants were told at a meeting that liquidators had been appointed and they were immediately dismissed.
-
Statement of Affairs
The respondent's Statement of Affairs showed a total deficiency in excess of £1.7 million.
-
Preliminary hearing
Employment Judge Curtis directed the claimants to submit statements of loss and set the hearing for 11 May 2023.
-
Re-service on liquidator
Proceedings were re-served on the respondent's liquidator.
-
Substantive hearing
The tribunal heard the case by video. The respondent did not attend. The tribunal found the dismissals unfair and awarded £500 each for loss of continuity.
-
Judgment sent
The written judgment was issued.
The legal issue
Whether the employees were unfairly dismissed when their employer closed the business without any consultation, and what compensation should be awarded for the lack of consultation.
The outcome
The tribunal decided that the dismissals were unfair because the employer failed to carry out any consultation or discussion with the employees before making them redundant.
However, due to the company's severe financial difficulties (a deficiency of over £1.7 million), the tribunal found that consultation would not have prolonged anyone's employment. Therefore, no compensation was awarded for future loss of earnings.
Compensation breakdown:
- Loss of continuity of service: £500 each
Lessons & takeaways
- Even in financial distress, employers must consult employees before making them redundant – failing to do so will likely make the dismissal unfair.
- If a company is in liquidation, employees may still bring unfair dismissal claims, but compensation may be limited if consultation would not have changed the outcome.
- Employees dismissed without notice should keep records of their losses and any payments received from the Insolvency Service, as these affect compensation.
- Loss of continuity of service is a recognised head of loss worth around £500, even if no other compensation is awarded.
A sudden closure with no warning
Four employees of Adrian Hall Ltd, a garden centre, were told on 16 August 2022 that the business was closing immediately and they were dismissed on the spot. There had been no prior discussion about redundancy, despite rumours of a possible TUPE transfer months earlier. The employees described the dismissal as 'a bolt out of the blue' and 'a real kick in the teeth'.
The company was in severe financial difficulty, with a deficiency of over £1.7 million, and had entered creditors' voluntary liquidation. The employees received statutory redundancy payments from the Insolvency Service, but brought unfair dismissal claims for the lack of consultation.
What the employer could have done differently
The tribunal found that the dismissals were unfair because the employer took no steps whatsoever to consult with staff about the risk to their jobs. Even in a crisis, a short period of consultation – perhaps to discuss alternatives or simply to give employees time to prepare – would have been reasonable. The employer's failure to do so made the dismissal procedurally unfair.
However, the tribunal also considered whether consultation would have made any difference. Given the company's dire financial position, it concluded that no amount of consultation would have delayed the closure or prolonged anyone's employment. As a result, no compensation was awarded for future loss of earnings.
Why the result matters
This case shows that even when a business is failing, the duty to consult with employees before making them redundant remains. Employers cannot simply announce a closure without any discussion and expect the dismissal to be fair. However, it also highlights the limits of compensation: if the employer can show that consultation would have been futile, the award may be limited to a nominal sum for loss of continuity of service – here, £500 each.
For employees, the key takeaway is that an unfair dismissal finding is valuable even if the financial award is small, because it confirms the employer's procedural failure. It also serves as a reminder that compensation is not automatic – it depends on what would have happened had the employer acted fairly.
Similar cases
President EMEA made redundant without consultation during pandemic: unfair dismissal
A senior executive with six years' service was dismissed for redundancy without any consultation or fair procedure, winning over £56,000 in compensation.
Library assistant made redundant by email: no consultation, unfair dismissal
A library assistant with 14 years' service was dismissed by email without any warning or consultation. The tribunal awarded £1,301 after finding the dismissal unfair, but reduced compensation by 80% because she would likely have been dismissed anyway.
Part-time fitness instructor unfairly dismissed after flawed redundancy scoring
A tribunal found that Greenwich Leisure Ltd unfairly dismissed an 8-year employee during pandemic redundancies, due to flawed selection criteria and a lack of consultation.
Panel beater dismissed in redundancy: small employer's 'pool of one' upheld
A Watford tribunal has ruled that a panel beater with three years' service was fairly dismissed when his employer, a four-person car repair shop, made him redundant as the only employee at risk. The decision highlights how small employers can follow a lighter process.