Financial advisor dismissed in redundancy: scoring matrix not shared until hearing
A financial advisor who sold his client bank to his employer was made redundant after scoring lowest on a matrix he never saw. The tribunal dismissed his unfair dismissal claim because he lacked the required two years' continuous service.
2 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a Financial Advisor from 1 June 2019 to 1 December 2020.
- The claimant sold his company Moneythatworks Ltd and his client bank to the respondent for £200,000–£240,000.
- The claimant was placed on furlough in March 2020 due to his high salary.
- The respondent conducted a redundancy exercise in August 2020, selecting the claimant for redundancy.
- The claimant scored 25 out of 32 on the redundancy scoring matrix, the lowest in the pool.
- The respondent failed to disclose the scoring matrices until shortly before the final hearing.
Timeline
-
Appointed Representative Agreement
The claimant entered an appointed representative agreement with the respondent, retaining ownership of his clients.
-
Employment Contract Start
The claimant became a direct employee of the respondent as a Financial Advisor with a salary of £73,000 per annum.
-
Share Sale and Purchase Agreement
The claimant sold his shares in Moneythatworks Ltd and his client bank to the respondent for £200,000–£240,000.
-
Claimant Placed on Furlough
The claimant was placed on furlough due to his high salary, despite not volunteering.
-
At Risk of Redundancy Letter
The claimant and four other financial planners were informed they were at risk of redundancy.
-
First Consultation Meeting
The claimant attended a consultation meeting; he expressed willingness to reduce hours and forego bonus.
-
Second Consultation Meeting
The claimant was informed he had been selected for redundancy; he was not given his scoring matrix.
-
Formal Redundancy Notice
The claimant received formal notice of redundancy with termination date of 27 November 2020 (later corrected to 1 December 2020).
-
Employment Terminated
The claimant's employment ended.
-
Claim Presented
The claimant presented claims of unfair dismissal, age discrimination, redundancy pay, and holiday pay.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant's continuous employment included his time as a director of his own company before he became an employee, which would have given him the two years' service needed to claim unfair dismissal.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the claimant's unfair dismissal claim because he did not have the required two years' continuous service. The key reason was that the sale of his company and client bank to the respondent did not amount to a transfer of an undertaking (TUPE) that would preserve his continuity of employment. His employment started on 1 June 2019 and ended on 1 December 2020, giving him only 18 months' service. The claims for age discrimination, redundancy pay, and holiday pay were not affected by this preliminary issue and will proceed to a full hearing.
Lessons & takeaways
- If you sell your business to an employer and become an employee, check whether TUPE applies to preserve your continuous service – it often does not if you were not an employee of the old business.
- Length of continuous service is critical for unfair dismissal claims – you need at least two years' service (one year if employed before 6 April 2012).
- Employers should disclose redundancy scoring matrices to employees during consultation to allow them to challenge the scores – failing to do so can weaken the fairness of the process.
This case highlights a common trap for business owners who sell their company and then work for the buyer as an employee. The financial advisor had built up a client bank through his own company and sold it to Aspirations Financial Advice Limited for up to £240,000. He then became an employee, but when the firm ran a redundancy exercise less than 18 months later, he was selected for dismissal after scoring lowest on a matrix he was never shown.
The tribunal had to decide a preliminary issue: whether his earlier self-employed period counted towards his continuous employment. The claimant argued that the sale of his company amounted to a transfer of an undertaking under TUPE regulations, which would have given him over 10 years' continuous service. However, the tribunal found that no such transfer occurred because the claimant was not an employee of his own company in the relevant sense – he was a director and shareholder, and the business was sold as a going concern, not as an employment transfer.
What the employer could have done differently
The respondent's handling of the redundancy process was not without flaws. The scoring matrix was not shared with the claimant until shortly before the final hearing, which deprived him of the chance to challenge his scores during consultation. While this did not affect the outcome of the preliminary issue, it could have been relevant if the claimant had had sufficient service to bring an unfair dismissal claim. Employers should always disclose selection criteria and scores to employees at risk of redundancy to ensure a fair process.
Why this matters for similar claims
The case serves as a reminder that the two-year qualifying period for unfair dismissal is strictly applied. Employees who have recently changed roles or become employees after selling a business should not assume that their previous service counts. It also shows that even where a redundancy process appears flawed – such as failing to share scoring matrices – the claim may still fail on a technicality like insufficient service. For those considering a claim, checking your continuous employment dates with an employment solicitor is a crucial first step.
Similar cases
Redundancy dismissal and victimisation claims fail: law enforcement officer loses tribunal case
A law enforcement officer with four years' service was fairly dismissed by redundancy and his claims of race and age discrimination, harassment, and victimisation were dismissed by the tribunal.
Strike-out and deposit order: a mixed outcome for former employee with osteoarthritis
A former employee with osteoarthritis faced strike-out of one harassment claim but was allowed to proceed with others, including unfair dismissal and disability discrimination, after a preliminary hearing.
36-year employee dismissed on redundancy: tribunal allows discrimination claims to proceed
A tribunal has allowed age and sex discrimination claims to proceed against a car sales company, while striking out an unfair dismissal claim because the claimant was not employed by the respondent at the time of dismissal.
Redundancy dismissal timed just before 55th birthday: unfair dismissal over pension loss
An Arrears and Investigations Manager with 19 years' service was unfairly dismissed when Slough Borough Council failed to consult properly and timed her redundancy 17 days before her 55th birthday, costing her pension access. Tribunal awarded £60,625.84.