Head butler dismissed by redundancy after Brexit and COVID: claim fails
A head butler with six years' service lost his unfair dismissal and disability discrimination claims after a tribunal found his redundancy was genuine and fairly handled.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #disability-discrimination
- #redundancy
- #brexit-impact
- #covid-19
- #failure-to-make-adjustments
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as Head Butler & Valet from 21 September 2015 until 28 July 2021.
- The claimant was diagnosed with skin cancer in May 2016 and was deemed disabled under the Equality Act 2010.
- The respondents decided to consider redundancy due to the Boylands' reduced travel, Brexit, and COVID-19 restrictions.
- The claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy after a consultation process in July 2021.
- The tribunal found the dismissal was fair and not related to the claimant's disability.
Timeline
-
Employment commenced
Claimant started work as Head of House/Head Butler & Valet at Shenton Hall.
-
Cancer diagnosis
Claimant diagnosed with skin cancer, deemed disabled under the Equality Act 2010.
-
Wife resigned
Mrs Horwell resigned; claimant offered resignation but it was not accepted.
-
Surgery and quarantine incident
Claimant had surgery for cancer; a French employee quarantined at Shenton Hall, which claimant later complained about.
-
Brexit effective
UK exited EU, affecting claimant's ability to work in France and Switzerland.
-
Visit to France
Claimant travelled to France to discuss future employment with the Boylands.
-
Redundancy mentioned
Mr Boyland told claimant there was a possibility of redundancy due to Brexit and COVID.
-
Medical appointment disclosed
Claimant informed Mr Boyland of a medical appointment on 2 August 2021.
-
First consultation meeting
First redundancy consultation meeting held by telephone.
-
Dismissal
Claimant dismissed by reason of redundancy with immediate effect.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was unfairly dismissed by reason of redundancy and whether his employer discriminated against him by failing to make reasonable adjustments or dismissing him because of his disability.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed all claims, ruling that the redundancy was genuine and the process was fair. The claimant was a head butler and valet for Shenton Properties Ltd, dismissed in July 2021 after Brexit and COVID-19 reduced the need for his role.
Key reasons:
- The redundancy was a genuine business decision due to reduced travel, Brexit, and COVID-19 restrictions.
- The consultation process, though brief, was adequate given the circumstances.
- The dismissal was not related to the claimant's disability (skin cancer).
No compensation was awarded as the claims failed.
Lessons & takeaways
- A genuine redundancy situation, even with a short consultation, can be fair if the employer has a sound business reason.
- Disability does not protect an employee from a genuine redundancy if the process is not discriminatory.
- Keep records of business decisions and consultations to show the dismissal was for a fair reason.
- If you have a disability, ensure your employer knows about any adjustments you need, but redundancy can still happen if the role is genuinely redundant.
A redundancy that stood up to scrutiny
This case shows that even a long-serving employee with a disability can be fairly dismissed if the redundancy is genuine and the process is reasonable. The claimant, a head butler and valet for six years, was dismissed after Brexit and COVID-19 reduced the need for his role. The tribunal found that the employer's decision to consider redundancy was based on real business changes, not the claimant's disability.
What the employer did right
Shenton Properties Ltd identified a genuine redundancy situation: the Boylands' reduced travel, Brexit, and COVID-19 restrictions meant less work for the claimant. They held a consultation meeting, considered alternatives, and dismissed only after deciding the role was redundant. The tribunal noted that while the consultation was short, it was not unreasonable given the circumstances.
Why the disability claims failed
The claimant argued that his dismissal was linked to his skin cancer and that the employer failed to make adjustments. However, the tribunal found no evidence that the redundancy was a pretext for discrimination. The employer knew about the disability but the decision was based on business needs, not the claimant's health. The failure-to-make-adjustments claim was dismissed because the claimant had not identified any specific adjustments that were needed for the redundancy process.
What this means for similar claims
This case is a reminder that redundancy is a fair reason for dismissal if the employer can show a genuine business need and a reasonable process. Employees with disabilities are not immune from redundancy, but employers must ensure the decision is not influenced by the disability. For employees, it highlights the importance of clear evidence that a dismissal was discriminatory, rather than just coinciding with a disability.
Similar cases
Redundancy dismissal upheld after COVID revenue drop: a fair process
A Customer Services Officer with 5 years' service was fairly dismissed for redundancy after her employer's room hire revenue plummeted during the pandemic. The tribunal rejected claims of disability discrimination and failure to make reasonable adjustments.
Redundancy selection after a workplace injury: when a fair process can still lead to dismissal
A Food and Beverage Assistant who fractured his hip at work and was later made redundant during the pandemic has lost his unfair dismissal and disability discrimination claims. The tribunal found the redundancy process was fair and that his disability was not the reason for his selection.
Sales manager dismissed in flawed redundancy process wins £4,105 after 80% Polkey cut
A 66-year-old sales manager with 7 years' service was unfairly dismissed after a flawed redundancy consultation during the pandemic, but the tribunal reduced his compensation by 80% because he would likely have been dismissed anyway.
20-year manager dismissed for capability after employer refused to adjust role for disability
A Global Governance Risk and Compliance Manager with 20 years' service was unfairly dismissed and discriminated against after GlaxoSmithKline failed to make reasonable adjustments for her hand disability. The tribunal awarded £24,785 for injury to feelings.