Dismissed for redundancy after divorce talks: a hidden reason for unfair dismissal
A book-keeper and administrator was unfairly dismissed after her employer used redundancy as a pretext to end her employment following the breakdown of divorce settlement negotiations. The tribunal awarded £8,922.50.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #whistleblowing
- #protected-disclosure
- #redundancy
- #divorce-mediation
- #acad-code-uplift
- #polkey
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a book-keeper and administrator from 1 May 2016.
- The claimant's role was outsourced to an external accountant in summer 2021.
- The claimant made protected disclosures about alleged misuse of a disabled relative's trust fund.
- The claimant was dismissed by email on 28 February 2022, purportedly for redundancy.
- The tribunal found the dismissal was unfair because the true reason was the breakdown of divorce settlement negotiations, not redundancy.
- The claimant's whistleblowing detriment claims were out of time.
Timeline
-
Claimant returns to UK and tells Mr Belson she wants to end marriage
The claimant returned to the UK and informed Mr Belson of her decision to end the marriage.
-
First alleged protected disclosure
The claimant emailed the company accountant about concerns regarding missing trust fund money.
-
Second alleged protected disclosure
The claimant emailed the company chairman about accounting practices.
-
Third alleged protected disclosure
The claimant emailed solicitors about suspicious transactions and alleged misuse of trust funds.
-
Locks changed and belongings removed
Mr Belson changed the locks on the marital home and removed the claimant's belongings.
-
Fourth alleged protected disclosure
The claimant sent company accounts to solicitors showing no record of the trust fund investment.
-
Health insurance cancelled
The claimant's company health insurance was cancelled, later reinstated.
-
Fifth and sixth alleged protected disclosures
The claimant emailed the chairman and solicitors about preliminary accounts and missing trust funds.
-
Dismissal
The claimant was dismissed by email with immediate effect, purportedly for redundancy.
-
Liability judgment
The tribunal found the claimant was unfairly dismissed but not automatically unfairly dismissed for whistleblowing.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was unfairly dismissed and whether the dismissal was automatically unfair because the principal reason was her protected disclosures about alleged misuse of a trust fund.
The outcome
The tribunal found that the claimant was unfairly dismissed. The reason given (redundancy) was not the true reason; the real reason was the breakdown of divorce settlement negotiations between the claimant and the company director, who was her former husband. The tribunal rejected the claim of automatic unfair dismissal for whistleblowing, as the protected disclosures were not the principal reason for dismissal.
Compensation:
- Basic award: £4,080.80
- Compensatory award: £4,841.70
- Total: £8,922.50
Lessons & takeaways
- If you are dismissed for a reason that is not the one given, you may have a claim for unfair dismissal – tribunals will look behind the stated reason.
- Personal disputes between directors and employees, such as divorce, can be the real reason for dismissal even if the employer cites redundancy.
- Whistleblowing claims require that the protected disclosure was the principal reason for dismissal – if other factors are also at play, the claim may fail.
- Keep records of all communications and events leading up to dismissal, as they can help establish the true reason.
A redundancy that wasn't
The claimant worked as a book-keeper and administrator for Jewellery Validation Services Ltd for five years. In 2021, she told the company's director, who was also her husband, that she wanted a divorce. Shortly after, she made a series of disclosures about alleged misuse of a disabled relative's trust fund. The company dismissed her in February 2022, citing redundancy after her role was outsourced.
The tribunal looked behind the stated reason and found that the real reason for dismissal was the breakdown of divorce settlement negotiations. The redundancy was a pretext. This is a classic example of an employer using a potentially fair reason to mask a personal motive.
What went wrong for the employer
The company could have avoided this outcome by being transparent about the true reason for dismissal. If the divorce negotiations had made the working relationship untenable, the employer could have considered a dismissal for 'some other substantial reason' – but only if properly handled. Instead, the tribunal found that the redundancy was not genuine, and the dismissal was unfair.
The claimant's whistleblowing claims were dismissed because the disclosures were not the principal reason for her dismissal. This shows that whistleblowing protection is strong but not automatic – the disclosure must be the main cause of the dismissal.
What this means for similar cases
This case highlights the importance of honesty in dismissal reasons. Employers cannot hide behind redundancy when personal disputes are the real driver. For employees, it shows that tribunals will scrutinise the true reason, especially when there is a history of personal conflict. The award of £8,922.50 reflects the claimant's losses, but the real lesson is that fairness in dismissal requires a genuine reason and a fair process.
Similar cases
Sports club managers dismissed without consultation: redundancy ruled unfair
Two joint managers of a sports club were unfairly dismissed when they were made redundant without any consultation, despite the club's dire financial situation. The tribunal also found they were owed unpaid wages and holiday pay.
CEO made redundant after protected disclosures: procedural unfairness in rejecting reduced-hours alternative
A CEO with 7 years' service was unfairly dismissed when his employer rejected his proposed reduced-hours alternative without proper consideration. The tribunal found the redundancy process procedurally flawed but applied a 75% Polkey deduction.
Whistleblowing claim fails: redundancy was genuine business reorganisation
A box office administrator who claimed he was dismissed for raising concerns about theatre management lost his unfair dismissal case. The tribunal found the redundancy was genuine and fairly handled.
Exercise Manager made redundant after furlough concerns: unfair dismissal but whistleblowing claim fails
An exercise manager was unfairly dismissed when her redundancy appeal was not independently handled, but her claim that she was dismissed for raising concerns about working while furloughed did not succeed.