Deputy principal dismissed for redundancy after consultation meeting lacked clear purpose
A deputy principal with 14 years' service was unfairly dismissed after the trust failed to tell her the purpose of a redundancy consultation meeting. The tribunal awarded no compensation, however, finding she would have been dismissed anyway.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a Deputy Principal from 1 September 2007 until dismissal on 2 October 2020.
- The claimant was found to be disabled due to depression from 22 February 2018.
- The claimant made no protected disclosures within the meaning of section 43B Employment Rights Act 1996.
- The respondent had a genuine redundancy situation and the claimant's role was deleted.
- The dismissal was unfair because the claimant was not told the purpose of the consultation meeting on 24 September 2020.
- Applying Polkey, the claimant would have been dismissed in any event, so no compensatory award was made.
Timeline
-
Employment commenced
Claimant started work as Deputy Director for New Technologies at Barnfield West Academy.
-
First alleged protected disclosure
Claimant emailed Catherine Barr about her health and others' concerns, but the tribunal found no qualifying disclosure.
-
Second alleged protected disclosure
Meeting with Catherine Barr; claimant raised concerns about treatment of staff and use of consultants, but no qualifying disclosure found.
-
Third alleged protected disclosure
Meeting with Catherine Barr; claimant repeated previous concerns, but no qualifying disclosure found.
-
Meeting with trade union representative
Claimant attended meeting with Nicholas Binder, Kevin Martin, and Cathy Barr; a Sixth Form Deputy Principal role was proposed.
-
Moved to generic trust role
Claimant was removed from Sixth Form Deputy Principal role and placed in a central trust role, maintaining salary.
-
Disability start date
Claimant was diagnosed with depression; tribunal later found this was the start of her disability.
-
Sickness absence began
Claimant went off sick with depression and did not return to work.
-
Grievance raised
Claimant submitted a grievance alleging discrimination and breach of duty; accepted as a protected act but not a protected disclosure.
-
Redundancy consultation meeting
Claimant attended a meeting without knowing it was a redundancy consultation; tribunal found this made the dismissal unfair.
-
Dismissal
Claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the dismissal was unfair because the consultation process was flawed, and if so, what compensation was appropriate given that a fair process would still have led to dismissal.
The outcome
The tribunal found that the dismissal was procedurally unfair because the claimant was not informed that the meeting on 24 September 2020 was a redundancy consultation. However, applying the Polkey principle, the tribunal concluded that even if a fair process had been followed, the claimant would still have been dismissed. As a result, no compensatory award was made.
- Unfair dismissal found due to lack of consultation purpose
- Polkey deduction of 100% applied, so no compensatory award
- Other claims (protected disclosure, discrimination) were dismissed
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers must clearly communicate the purpose of redundancy consultation meetings to employees.
- A procedural flaw does not always lead to compensation if the outcome would have been the same.
- Employees should ensure they understand the purpose of meetings and seek clarification if needed.
- Long-serving employees are entitled to a fair process, but the result may still be dismissal if redundancy is genuine.
What this case shows
This case highlights the importance of clear communication during redundancy processes. The claimant, a deputy principal with 14 years of service, was dismissed after a meeting she attended without knowing it was a redundancy consultation. The tribunal found this procedural flaw made the dismissal unfair, but the outcome was a hollow victory: no compensation was awarded because the trust had a genuine redundancy situation and the claimant would have been dismissed anyway.
What could have been done differently
The trust could have avoided the unfair dismissal finding simply by stating the meeting's purpose in advance. A brief email or letter explaining that the meeting was to discuss redundancy would have satisfied the requirement. The trust's failure to do so was a basic procedural error that cost it nothing financially but may have damaged trust and morale.
Why this matters
For employees, this case is a reminder that even a successful unfair dismissal claim may not result in compensation if the employer can show a fair process would have led to the same outcome. For employers, it underscores that procedural fairness is not optional, even when redundancy is genuine. The case also shows that the Polkey principle can reduce compensation to zero if the dismissal was inevitable.
Similar cases
Former employee unfairly dismissed but gets only basic award after 70% contributory conduct deduction
A Watford tribunal found Mitie Ltd unfairly dismissed a former employee but reduced his basic award by 70% for his own conduct and made no compensatory award due to a 100% Polkey reduction. He received £1,298.10.
Line Driver's discrimination claims dismissed as out of time after redundancy
An employment tribunal dismissed all discrimination claims brought by a part-time Line Driver with 4 years' service against Manheim Limited, finding they were brought too late and lacked merit. The unfair dismissal claim was withdrawn.
Governance Manager's discrimination and unfair dismissal claims rejected
A Governance Manager who brought multiple claims of discrimination, victimisation and unfair dismissal after being made redundant has lost her case. The tribunal ordered her to pay £20,000 in costs.
Attendance Officer dismissed in restructure: redundancy process upheld despite grievances
A tribunal has ruled that an Attendance Officer with 10 years' service was fairly dismissed by Wokingham Borough Council and LDBS Frays Academy Trust following a redundancy selection process, rejecting claims of race discrimination and unfair dismissal.