Head of IT loses redundancy and sex discrimination claims against HML Holdings
A tribunal dismissed claims of unfair dismissal and sex discrimination by a Head of Information Systems made redundant after a restructure. She was awarded £1,013 for untaken holiday.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #redundancy
- #sex-discrimination
- #laddish-culture
- #instant-messaging
- #parking-space
- #exclusion-from-meetings
- #breach-of-contract-holiday-pay
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as Head of Information Systems from 1 February 2007 until 10 July 2020.
- The respondent decided to freeze development of its Property Management System (PMS) in April 2020, leading to a restructure.
- The claimant's role was identified as at risk of redundancy and she was dismissed on 12 June 2020.
- The claimant alleged she was excluded from a WhatsApp/instant messaging group and that the group name was changed to 'Who's she gonna slap now?'
- The tribunal found insufficient evidence to support the existence of such a group or the name change.
- The claimant was awarded £1,013.37 gross for three days of untaken purchased holiday.
Timeline
-
Employment commenced
Claimant started as Head of Information Systems.
-
Employee Engagement Survey
Survey revealed low morale in the Development Team.
-
HR Site Visit Report
Report identified leadership failings and recommended changes.
-
Second HR Report
Report recommended managing the claimant out or demotion.
-
Grievance outcome
Joel Sanmoogan's grievance against claimant partially upheld.
-
CEO change
Alec Guthrie became CEO after Robert Plumb retired.
-
National lockdown
Claimant began working from home due to Covid-19.
-
Project Arnold report
Report proposed restructure due to PMS freeze.
-
Redundancy consultation begins
Claimant informed of potential redundancy.
-
Dismissal
Claimant dismissed by reason of redundancy.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was unfairly dismissed by reason of redundancy and whether she suffered sex discrimination, harassment, or indirect discrimination in connection with her redundancy and treatment during employment.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed all claims of unfair dismissal, direct sex discrimination, indirect sex discrimination, and harassment related to sex. It found that the redundancy was genuine, the selection process was fair, and there was no evidence of discriminatory treatment.
- The claimant was awarded £1,013.37 gross for breach of contract in respect of three days of untaken purchased holiday.
- No other compensation was awarded.
Lessons & takeaways
- A genuine redundancy situation and a fair selection process can defeat an unfair dismissal claim, even if the employee has long service.
- Allegations of discriminatory culture need solid evidence – tribunal will not rely on hearsay or uncorroborated claims.
- Employers should document redundancy consultations and selection criteria clearly to show fairness.
- Claims for breach of contract for untaken holiday can succeed even if the main discrimination claim fails.
A redundancy decision that withstood scrutiny
The case concerned a Head of Information Systems with 13 years' service who was made redundant after her employer froze development of a key software system. The tribunal accepted that the redundancy was genuine and that the selection process was fair, despite the claimant's allegations that the real reason was sex discrimination.
The tribunal heard evidence about a claimed 'laddish culture' including an alleged WhatsApp group named 'Who's she gonna slap now?' and exclusion from meetings. However, the tribunal found insufficient evidence to support these claims, noting that the claimant had not raised the WhatsApp issue during her employment and that the meeting exclusion was not linked to her sex.
What the employer did right
HML Holdings had conducted a formal restructure (Project Arnold) after the CEO change, identified the claimant's role as at risk, and carried out a consultation process. The tribunal found that the decision to dismiss was within the range of reasonable responses, given the business need to restructure. The claimant's long service did not outweigh the genuine redundancy situation.
Why this result matters
This case shows that not every redundancy following a restructure will be unfair, even if the employee has a long service record. It also highlights the importance of evidence in discrimination claims – tribunals will not infer discrimination from a 'laddish culture' without concrete proof. The modest award for untaken holiday was a reminder that breach of contract claims can succeed even when the main claim fails.
Similar cases
Claims dismissed after claimants fail to attend final hearing
Two former employees who brought claims for unfair dismissal, discrimination and redundancy had their cases thrown out after failing to attend the final hearing or provide any evidence.
Deputy Design Director loses redundancy and discrimination claims against Greenland UK
A deputy design director who brought claims of unfair dismissal, discrimination, harassment, victimisation, and unlawful deduction from wages after being made redundant has lost all her claims at the London Central Employment Tribunal.
Shop worker's unfair dismissal claim fails after respondent's response struck out
A former shop worker's unfair dismissal claim was dismissed after the tribunal struck out the employer's response for failing to comply with case management directions for over two years.
Redundancy dismissal upheld as fair despite disability, race and sex discrimination claims
An Executive Development Consultant with multiple sclerosis lost her unfair dismissal and discrimination claims after the tribunal found the redundancy was genuine and fairly handled.