Director of Partnerships made redundant: dismissal unfair but compensation wiped out
A director of partnerships was unfairly dismissed for redundancy due to a lack of consultation, but the tribunal reduced his compensation to nil because the redundancy was inevitable. He also won £1,211 for an unlawful deduction from wages.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as Director of Partnerships from 22 October 2018.
- The first respondent's SAAS business lost nearly all clients by the time of dismissal.
- The claimant was made redundant on 21 April 2021 due to the business not recovering from the pandemic.
- The claimant was offered an interview for a role at the second respondent but was not appointed.
- The respondent deducted £1,211 from the claimant's wages for unreturned company property without contractual authority.
- The claimant's compensatory award was reduced to nil under Polkey as dismissal was inevitable.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant started as Director of Partnerships at JetEngage Limited.
-
Open heart surgery
Claimant underwent major open heart surgery.
-
Pay cut agreed
Claimant agreed to a 25% pay cut to avoid furlough.
-
Disciplinary warning
Claimant received a disciplinary warning regarding communications with a business contact.
-
Furloughed
Claimant was furloughed until termination.
-
Informed of potential redundancy
Claimant was told his role might be redundant and offered an interview for a role at Jet Media Network.
-
Interview for new role
Claimant interviewed for Head of Sales role at Jet Media Network but was not appointed.
-
Not appointed
Claimant was informed he was not offered the role.
-
Termination letter
Claimant received letter terminating employment effective 21 April 2021 due to redundancy.
-
Dismissal effective
Claimant's employment ended.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was unfairly dismissed by reason of redundancy, and whether the respondent's deduction of £1,211 for unreturned company property was an unlawful deduction from wages.
The outcome
The tribunal upheld the claimant's claim of unfair dismissal, but reduced his compensation to nil under the Polkey principle because the redundancy was inevitable. The claimant also succeeded in his claim for unlawful deduction of wages, recovering £1,211 deducted for unreturned company property without contractual authority.
- Basic award: £1,632 (reduced to nil under Polkey)
- Compensatory award: £0 (reduced to nil under Polkey)
- Unlawful deduction award: £1,211
Lessons & takeaways
- Even if a redundancy is genuine, a failure to consult properly can make the dismissal unfair.
- A Polkey reduction can wipe out compensation if the tribunal finds the employee would have been dismissed anyway.
- Employers must have clear contractual authority before deducting wages for unreturned property.
- Claims against a separate respondent may be struck out if brought out of time, even if the main claim is in time.
A redundancy that was inevitable but procedurally flawed
The claimant, a Director of Partnerships, was made redundant in April 2021 after JetEngage Limited's SAAS business lost nearly all its clients during the pandemic. The tribunal accepted that the redundancy was genuine — the business had not recovered and the role was no longer viable. However, the process leading to the dismissal was flawed. The claimant was not given proper consultation or a fair opportunity to explore alternatives. The tribunal found that the dismissal was procedurally unfair.
What the employer could have done differently
JetEngage could have avoided the unfair dismissal finding by engaging in a more thorough consultation process. While the claimant was offered an interview for a role at a related company, the tribunal noted that the consultation was insufficient. A more structured process, including exploring alternative roles within the group and giving the claimant a genuine opportunity to input, would have made the dismissal fair.
Why the result matters
This case is a reminder that procedural fairness matters even when the outcome is inevitable. The Polkey reduction meant the claimant received no compensation for the unfair dismissal, but the finding of unfairness itself can be significant for reputation and future claims. The claimant also succeeded in recovering £1,211 that was unlawfully deducted from his wages for unreturned company property — a reminder that employers cannot unilaterally deduct wages without contractual authority.
Similar cases
Paralegal dismissed while pregnant: redundancy that failed to consult fairly
A paralegal with 3.5 years' service was unfairly dismissed and discriminated against due to pregnancy when her employer made her redundant without proper consultation or considering alternative roles. The tribunal awarded £18,792.26.
Head of Compliance dismissed after TUPE transfer: redundancy was a sham
A head of compliance with 9 years' service was automatically unfairly dismissed when her redundancy was driven by a TUPE transfer, not genuine redundancy. The tribunal found the employer failed to consult properly.
President EMEA made redundant without consultation during pandemic: unfair dismissal
A senior executive with six years' service was dismissed for redundancy without any consultation or fair procedure, winning over £56,000 in compensation.
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.