Solicitor made redundant without proper consideration of alternative role at sister firm
A housing solicitor was unfairly dismissed when her employer failed to properly consider a possible secondment at a sister firm. The tribunal found a 85% chance that consultation would have led to an alternative role.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #redundancy
- #alternative-employment
- #consultation-failure
- #polkey-deduction
- #appeal-independence
Key facts
- The claimant was a housing solicitor and later worked in the Grenfell Tower Inquiry Team.
- The respondent purchased Foster & Foster in November 2021 to provide alternative work for staff.
- In February 2022, the claimant declined a housing supervisor role at Foster & Foster.
- On 4 October 2022, the claimant was told her role was redundant and raised the possibility of a role at Foster & Foster, but the respondent did not properly consider it.
- The respondent failed to take notes at the consultation meeting and the appeal was not handled independently.
- The tribunal found a 85% chance that consultation would have led to a secondment at Foster & Foster.
Timeline
-
Claimant joined respondent
The claimant started working for the respondent as a housing solicitor.
-
Respondent purchased Foster & Foster
The respondent bought another solicitors firm to provide alternative work for staff as the Grenfell Tower Inquiry work wound down.
-
Claimant declined housing supervisor role
The claimant was asked if she wanted to apply for a housing supervisor role at Foster & Foster but declined, stating she wished to continue with the Inquiry work.
-
Proposal for reduced GTI team
Mr Mahmood proposed a team of 3 solicitors for remaining Inquiry work, excluding the claimant.
-
Inquiry Solicitor's response
The Inquiry Solicitor indicated that little further work would be required, effectively ending the GTI team's work.
-
Redundancy consultation meeting
The claimant was called to a meeting where she was told her role was redundant. She raised the possibility of a role at Foster & Foster but was given the impression it was not an option.
-
Follow-up meeting
The claimant had a follow-up meeting but no alternative employment was identified.
-
Redundancy confirmed
The respondent sent a letter confirming the claimant's redundancy, stating no alternative employment had been found.
-
Secondment to Foster & Foster
A Grade C solicitor from the GTI team was seconded to Foster & Foster.
-
Tribunal hearing
The employment tribunal heard the case and found the dismissal unfair.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the employer acted reasonably in dismissing the claimant for redundancy, particularly whether it took adequate steps to find her suitable alternative employment and whether the consultation and appeal process were fair.
The outcome
The tribunal declared the dismissal unfair. The key reasons were: the respondent failed to properly consider the possibility of a secondment at Foster & Foster after the claimant raised it; no notes were taken at the consultation meeting; and the appeal was not handled independently.
Compensation was not determined at this hearing, but the tribunal found that there was an 85% chance that proper consultation would have led to a secondment at Foster & Foster, which will affect any future compensatory award.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers must actively consider alternative employment options, even if the employee previously declined a similar role.
- Taking proper notes at consultation meetings is essential to demonstrate a fair process.
- Appeals should be handled by someone independent of the original decision to ensure impartiality.
What this case shows in practice
A solicitor with five years' service was made redundant when her role in the Grenfell Tower Inquiry team came to an end. Her employer had bought a sister firm, Foster & Foster, to provide alternative work for staff. Yet when the claimant raised the possibility of a role there during the redundancy consultation, the employer gave her the impression it was not an option. A Grade C solicitor from the same team was later seconded to Foster & Foster.
The tribunal found that the employer did not properly consider the alternative employment. It also noted that no notes were taken at the consultation meeting, and the appeal was not handled independently — both procedural failings.
What the losing side could have done differently
The employer could have taken the claimant's suggestion seriously and explored whether a secondment was feasible. Even though she had declined a housing supervisor role months earlier, the circumstances had changed. A proper consultation, with notes, and an independent appeal might have avoided the finding of unfairness.
Why the result matters for similar claims
This case is a reminder that redundancy processes must be genuine and thorough. Employers cannot rely on a previous refusal of alternative work without revisiting the situation at the time of dismissal. The 85% Polkey deduction — meaning the tribunal believed there was a high chance the claimant would have been offered a role if proper consultation had occurred — shows how significant these failures can be.
Similar cases
Café manager with 17 years' service unfairly dismissed after redundancy and missed vacancy
A café manager with 17 years' service was unfairly dismissed when her employer failed to inform her of a sales assistant vacancy during redundancy consultation. The tribunal awarded £560.28 after applying a 66.7% Polkey reduction.
18-year employee unfairly dismissed after flawed redundancy scoring
A Quality Lead with 18 years' service was unfairly dismissed when Mitie Group Plc used flawed selection criteria and a perfunctory consultation process in a redundancy exercise. The tribunal awarded £46,933.64.
Procedurally unfair redundancy but no compensation: employee who rejected alternative role
A Principal Technical Author with 14 years' service won his unfair dismissal claim over a flawed redundancy process, but received no compensation because the tribunal found he would not have accepted any alternative role.
Operations manager with 17 years' service unfairly dismissed after flawed redundancy consultation
A Newcastle tribunal found that Angel of Corbridge Ltd unfairly dismissed an operations manager with 17 years' service by failing to disclose the selection matrix and not considering a suitable alternative role. She was awarded £12,799.