Managing Director made redundant in a pool of one: tribunal finds fair process
A tribunal has dismissed claims of unfair dismissal and discrimination by a Managing Director made redundant when her role was eliminated in a cost-saving restructure.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #redundancy
- #pool-of-one
- #cost-reduction
- #covid-19-impact
- #redeployment-efforts
- #age-discrimination
- #sex-discrimination
Key facts
- The claimant was a Managing Director of Non-Recourse Lending at DB Group Services.
- The respondent decided to merge the Non-Recourse Lending and Recourse Lending teams to save costs.
- The claimant was placed in a pool of one and her role was eliminated.
- The respondent made extensive efforts to redeploy the claimant but no suitable role was found.
- The tribunal found no evidence that the claimant's age or sex influenced the redundancy decision.
Timeline
-
Claimant started employment
Claimant joined DB Group Services as Managing Director of Non-Recourse Lending at age 52.
-
Mr Nagarkatti became Head of Global Lending
Arjun Nagarkatti took over as Global Head of Lending, responsible for the claimant and other senior managers.
-
Decision to merge NRL and RL
Mr Nagarkatti decided to merge Non-Recourse Lending and Recourse Lending teams, eliminating one MD role.
-
UK lockdown due to COVID-19
The UK entered lockdown, causing a freeze on redundancy communications until May 2020.
-
Freeze lifted
The respondent lifted the freeze on individual restructuring conversations.
-
Claimant placed at risk of redundancy
Claimant received a letter placing her at risk of redundancy due to role elimination.
-
Consultation meeting
Mr Nagarkatti and HR met with the claimant to discuss the redundancy rationale; claimant disagreed but was offered further consultation.
-
Claimant dismissed
After extended notice period and unsuccessful redeployment efforts, claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy.
-
Appeal hearing
Claimant's appeal against dismissal was heard by Mr Zielenski and Ms Dave.
-
Appeal outcome
Appeal was dismissed; the decision to dismiss for redundancy was upheld.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant's dismissal by reason of redundancy was unfair and whether it amounted to direct age and/or sex discrimination.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed all claims. It found that the respondent had a genuine business need to restructure and that the decision to place the claimant in a pool of one was reasonable given her unique role. The respondent made extensive efforts to redeploy her, but no suitable alternative role was available. There was no evidence that age or sex played any part in the decision.
No compensation was awarded as the claims failed.
Lessons & takeaways
- A 'pool of one' can be fair if the employee's role is genuinely unique and there is no one else doing similar work.
- Employers should document the business rationale for a restructure and the reasons for selecting the pool, especially when it contains only one person.
- Extensive redeployment efforts can help defend a redundancy dismissal, even if they are ultimately unsuccessful.
- Claims of discrimination based on age or sex require clear evidence that the protected characteristic was a factor in the decision.
When a restructure leaves just one person at risk
This case shows how a genuine business restructure can lead to a fair dismissal even when only one employee is affected. The Managing Director of Non-Recourse Lending was placed in a pool of one after her team was merged with another to cut costs. The tribunal accepted that her role was unique, so a wider pool would have been artificial.
What the employer did right
The respondent took several steps that helped its defence. It delayed redundancy communications during the first COVID-19 lockdown, then gave the claimant an extended notice period to allow time for redeployment. It searched for alternative roles across the organisation, but none were suitable. The tribunal noted that the decision-maker was not involved in the discrimination claims and that the claimant's age and sex were not mentioned in any relevant discussions.
What the claimant argued
The claimant said she was selected because she was an 'older woman' and that the redundancy was a sham. However, the tribunal found no evidence to support this. It pointed out that she was hired at age 52, two colleagues of similar age were on the same executive committee, and the decision to merge the teams was made before any discussion of her performance or characteristics.
Why this matters
For employees, this case is a reminder that a redundancy process can be fair even if it feels personal. For employers, it shows the importance of a clear business case, a reasonable selection pool, and genuine efforts to find alternative work. The lack of any discrimination finding also highlights that tribunals will look for concrete evidence, not just suspicion, when assessing claims of bias.
Similar cases
31-year employee made redundant: tribunal upholds fairness despite missed consultations
A tribunal has ruled that Wolseley UK Limited fairly dismissed a long-serving employee by reason of redundancy, rejecting claims of age discrimination, harassment, and victimisation.
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.
Aftercare Manager dismissed for refusing alternative role: redundancy dismissal upheld
An Aftercare Manager with 4 years' service was fairly dismissed for redundancy after refusing a suitable alternative role due to childcare commitments. The tribunal rejected claims of age discrimination and protected disclosure detriment.
Panel beater dismissed in redundancy: small employer's 'pool of one' upheld
A Watford tribunal has ruled that a panel beater with three years' service was fairly dismissed when his employer, a four-person car repair shop, made him redundant as the only employee at risk. The decision highlights how small employers can follow a lighter process.