Dismissed for redundancy that wasn't genuine: a warning for employers
A former employee was unfairly dismissed after her employer failed to prove a genuine redundancy exercise. The tribunal awarded £1,921.85 in compensation.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant was employed by the respondent and was dismissed.
- The respondent claimed the dismissal was due to redundancy.
- The tribunal found the respondent failed to prove a genuine redundancy exercise.
- The claimant's claims of disability discrimination and public interest disclosure were dismissed.
- The claimant withdrew claims for holiday pay, time off in lieu, and notice pay.
- The claimant's claim for unpaid wages related to car payments was dismissed.
Timeline
-
Claim presented
The claimant presented her claim to the employment tribunal.
-
Hearing day 1
The substantive hearing began at Carlisle Employment Tribunal.
-
Hearing day 2
The hearing continued.
-
Hearing day 3
The hearing continued.
-
Hearing day 4
The hearing resumed after a break.
-
Hearing day 5
The hearing concluded.
-
Judgment issued
The tribunal issued its judgment, finding unfair dismissal but dismissing other claims.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was unfairly dismissed, and whether the dismissal was for a potentially fair reason (redundancy). It also considered claims of disability discrimination and public interest disclosure, which were dismissed.
The outcome
The tribunal found the claimant was unfairly dismissed. The respondent claimed the dismissal was due to redundancy, but failed to show a genuine redundancy exercise had taken place. As a result, the dismissal was not for a fair reason.
Compensation:
- Compensatory award: £1,921.85
- No basic award was due because a redundancy payment had already been made for the same amount.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers must be able to demonstrate a genuine redundancy situation and a fair selection process to defend a redundancy dismissal.
- If you are dismissed and suspect the redundancy reason is not genuine, you may have a claim for unfair dismissal.
- Claims for disability discrimination and whistleblowing require evidence of a protected characteristic or disclosure; they will be dismissed if not proven.
When a redundancy dismissal is not what it seems
This case shows what can happen when an employer claims redundancy but cannot back it up with evidence. The former employee was told she was being made redundant, but the tribunal found that the respondent, Autosparx Limited, did not prove that a genuine redundancy exercise had taken place. That meant the dismissal was for no fair reason, making it unfair.
What the employer could have done differently
To defend a redundancy dismissal, an employer must show there was a genuine need to reduce the workforce, a fair selection process, and proper consultation. Here, Autosparx Limited failed to meet that basic requirement. Keeping clear records of the business reasons for redundancy and the selection criteria would have strengthened their case.
Why this matters for similar claims
For employees, this case is a reminder that the label 'redundancy' is not enough. If you believe your redundancy was not genuine, you can challenge it. The tribunal will look at whether the employer can prove the redundancy was real. For employers, it underscores the importance of proper process and documentation. Without it, a dismissal that could have been fair becomes an expensive mistake.
Similar cases
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.
Sales manager dismissed in flawed redundancy process wins £4,105 after 80% Polkey cut
A 66-year-old sales manager with 7 years' service was unfairly dismissed after a flawed redundancy consultation during the pandemic, but the tribunal reduced his compensation by 80% because he would likely have been dismissed anyway.
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.
Threatening emails and abuse of witnesses: claim struck out as vexatious
A former employee who sent threatening emails to colleagues and called a witness a liar outside the tribunal room had his unfair dismissal claim struck out. The tribunal said a fair trial was no longer possible.