Employment law specialist unfairly dismissed administrator during business closure
An employment law specialist who closed his business due to ill health was found to have unfairly dismissed his administrator of 10 years. The tribunal awarded compensation for the unfair dismissal and failure to provide written particulars.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #business-closure
- #redundancy
- #failure-to-provide-written-particulars
- #employment-law-specialist
- #health-related-dismissal
Key facts
- The claimant was employed from 5 September 2011 until 22 August 2021 as an Administrator, Office Manager, Business Manager and Compliance Officer.
- The respondent, an employment law specialist, closed his business due to his own ill health and instructed the claimant to cancel key contracts.
- The respondent discussed redundancy with the claimant and confirmed a redundancy payment figure, but later denied dismissing her.
- The claimant did not resign; she sought clarity about her position and did not agree to any changes in her terms.
- The respondent failed to provide a written statement of employment particulars as required by section 1 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began working for the respondent as an Administrator, Office Manager, Business Manager and Compliance Officer.
-
Respondent's back problems began
Mr Radelat started experiencing severe back pain, which later prevented him from working.
-
Telephone conversation about business closure
Mr Radelat told the claimant he was considering closing the business due to his back condition and asked her to consider reduced hours.
-
Cancellation of business insurance
Claimant emailed the insurance company to cancel the policy, stating the firm was temporarily suspending operations.
-
Email exchange about redundancy
Mr Radelat emailed the claimant saying he was 'happy to make you redundant if that is your preference'.
-
Employment terminated
Parties agreed the notice period; the claimant's employment ended due to business closure.
-
Notice period started
Claimant began her 9-week notice period, working full hours.
-
Effective date of termination
Claimant's employment ended.
-
Redundancy pay not received
Claimant received her August pay but no redundancy payment.
-
Claim presented
Claimant filed a claim for unfair dismissal, redundancy pay, and other complaints.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was dismissed or left voluntarily, and if dismissed, whether the dismissal was fair. It also had to determine if the employer failed to provide a written statement of employment particulars.
The outcome
The tribunal found that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy when her employer closed his business due to his own ill health. The dismissal was unfair because the employer did not follow any fair procedure: there was no proper consultation, no consideration of alternative employment, and no reasonable selection process.
The tribunal also found that the employer failed to provide a written statement of employment particulars, as required by section 1 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
Compensation is to be determined at a separate remedy hearing. The claimant withdrew her claim for unlawful deduction from wages.
Lessons & takeaways
- Even when an employer is ill and closing a business, they must still follow a fair redundancy procedure, including consultation and considering alternatives.
- Employment law specialists are held to the same standards as any other employer; ignorance or denial of dismissal does not avoid liability.
- Employees with 10 years' service are entitled to a fair process; failing to provide written particulars is a separate breach that can attract compensation.
- If an employer tells an employee to cancel contracts and stop work, that is likely to be a dismissal, not a resignation or mutual agreement.
When an employment law specialist gets it wrong
This case shows that even those who advise others on employment law can fall foul of basic requirements. The respondent, a solicitor specialising in employment law, closed his practice due to severe back problems. He told his administrator of 10 years to cancel business contracts and stop working, then later claimed she had not been dismissed at all. The tribunal rejected that argument, finding that the employer's words and actions clearly amounted to a dismissal by reason of redundancy.
What went wrong
The employer failed to follow any of the standard steps for a fair redundancy process. There was no meaningful consultation, no exploration of alternative roles, and no objective selection criteria. The tribunal noted that the employer's ill health did not excuse him from his duties as an employer. A fair process would have included warning the employee, discussing alternatives, and considering whether any other work was available – even if the business was closing.
Why this matters
This case is a reminder that redundancy dismissals must be handled fairly, regardless of the employer's personal circumstances. Employees with long service are entitled to proper consultation and consideration. The failure to provide written particulars – a basic legal requirement – added to the employer's liability. For anyone in a similar situation, the key takeaway is that a business closure does not automatically justify an unfair dismissal; the employer must still act reasonably.
Similar cases
Site closure without process: redundancy dismissal ruled unfair
A former employee with three years' service was unfairly dismissed after his site closed and the employer failed to follow any redundancy process. The tribunal awarded over £44,000 in compensation.
Gymnastics coach awarded £2,230 after redundancy dismissal without consultation
A gymnastics coach who was dismissed by email with immediate effect citing redundancy was awarded £2,230 for unauthorised wage deductions and failure to provide written particulars. The tribunal found the dismissal unfair.
Chef with 35 years' service dismissed without consultation when restaurant closed
A chef who worked for 35 years was made redundant without any consultation or notice when his restaurant closed. The tribunal awarded £17,766 in redundancy and notice pay, but reduced compensation for unfair dismissal by 100% because the business was bound to close.
Farm shop worker dismissed after changing her mind about alternative role: unfair dismissal
A farm shop worker with 7 years' service was unfairly dismissed after initially refusing a suitable alternative role but later changing her mind, only to have her employer ignore her change of heart. The tribunal awarded £7,209.50.