Redundancy selection with predetermined outcome: unfair dismissal for senior adviser with 20 years' service
A senior financial adviser with 20 years' service was unfairly dismissed after a redundancy process where the outcome was predetermined. The tribunal awarded £24,229.53, reduced by 80% due to the chance he would have been dismissed anyway.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a senior financial adviser from 4 September 2000 until 11 August 2020.
- The respondent placed the claimant at risk of redundancy on 27 March 2020, along with three other advisory team members.
- The claimant scored 50.5 out of 100 in the selection criteria, the lowest in the pool, and was dismissed for redundancy.
- The tribunal found the dismissal unfair because the outcome was predetermined and the claimant was not given a proper opportunity to challenge his scores.
- The majority applied an 80% Polkey reduction, finding a strong chance the claimant would have been dismissed even with a fair process.
- The claimant's claims of direct age discrimination were dismissed.
Timeline
-
Claimant started employment
Mr Rowan began working for DWPF Limited, the respondent's predecessor, as an experienced financial adviser.
-
Mr Tyerman appointed CEO
David Wylde announced Dan Tyerman as CEO; the claimant was unhappy and later alleged age-related comments were made.
-
Claimant put at risk of redundancy
Mr Wylde telephoned the claimant to give him a heads-up that he would be placed at risk of redundancy.
-
First consultation meeting
Mr Wylde explained the redundancy rationale; the claimant was told one advisor would be made redundant.
-
Second consultation meeting
The claimant raised concerns about selection criteria and how length of service would be compared.
-
Third consultation meeting
Final opportunity to comment on criteria before scoring; the claimant requested more data.
-
Claimant informed of selection
Mr Wylde told the claimant he scored lowest and would be dismissed; other pool members told they were safe.
-
Dismissal meeting
The claimant was told his employment would terminate with three months' notice; he was offered an appeal.
-
Appeal submitted
The claimant appealed, raising concerns about pool, criteria, and alleged age discrimination.
-
Appeal dismissed
Nick Ross upheld the redundancy decision, rejecting all grounds of appeal.
-
Effective date of termination
The claimant's employment ended at the conclusion of his notice period.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was unfairly dismissed for redundancy and whether the respondent directly discriminated against him because of his age.
The outcome
The tribunal unanimously found the dismissal unfair. The redundancy process was flawed because the outcome was predetermined and the claimant was not given a proper chance to challenge his selection scores.
However, by a majority, the tribunal applied an 80% Polkey reduction, concluding there was a strong chance the claimant would have been dismissed even with a fair process.
- Compensatory award: £24,229.53 (after 80% Polkey reduction)
- Basic award: None (included in compensatory award)
- Polkey reduction: 80%
- Contributory fault: None
The claimant's claims of direct age discrimination were dismissed.
Lessons & takeaways
- If you are selected for redundancy, ensure you have a genuine opportunity to comment on the selection criteria and challenge your scores before a final decision is made.
- A predetermined outcome is a clear sign of unfair dismissal – tribunals will look for evidence that the process was a sham.
- Even if the process is unfair, a Polkey reduction may apply if the employer can show a fair process would likely have led to the same result.
This case shows how a redundancy process that appears to be a foregone conclusion can lead to a finding of unfair dismissal, even when the employer had a genuine redundancy situation. The claimant, a senior financial adviser with two decades of service, was placed at risk along with three colleagues. But the tribunal found that the decision to dismiss him was made before he had any real chance to influence the outcome.
What went wrong
The employer scored the claimant using subjective criteria, but the tribunal concluded that the result was predetermined. The claimant was not given a proper opportunity to understand or challenge his scores before the final decision. This lack of genuine consultation meant the dismissal fell outside the range of reasonable responses for a fair employer.
Why the result matters
For employees facing redundancy, this case reinforces the importance of a transparent process where you can genuinely influence the outcome. For employers, it is a reminder that even a genuine redundancy situation does not excuse a flawed procedure. The 80% Polkey reduction shows that tribunals will still consider what would have happened in a fair process, but the starting point is that the dismissal was unfair.
The age discrimination claims were dismissed, as the tribunal found no evidence that age played a role in the decision. This highlights the difficulty of proving direct discrimination when there is a legitimate business reason for dismissal.
Similar cases
Regional Sales Manager unfairly dismissed after redundancy scoring was pre-determined
A tribunal found that Syspal Ltd unfairly dismissed a Regional Sales Manager with 2 years 7 months' service because the redundancy selection process was pre-determined and the scoring matrix flawed. He was awarded £32,735 in compensation.
Redundancy selection manipulated to target older employee: unfair dismissal and age discrimination
An applications engineer with 7 years' service was unfairly dismissed after his redundancy scoring was manipulated and age played a material role. The tribunal awarded £65,747.54.
Building supervisor with 15 years' service unfairly dismissed in flawed redundancy process
A building supervisor was unfairly dismissed after a redundancy selection process that made a final decision before meaningful consultation. The tribunal awarded £4,130.86, reduced by 85% for the chance he would have been dismissed anyway.
Redundancy selection predetermined: BT loses unfair dismissal and sex discrimination claim
A Radio and Rigging Manager with 25 years' service was unfairly dismissed after BT was found to have predetermined her redundancy selection and ignored her sex discrimination grievance. The tribunal awarded £137,929.