Security officer unfairly dismissed in redundancy but age bias claim fails
A security officer was unfairly dismissed by Amberstone Security Limited in a flawed redundancy process, but his age discrimination claim was rejected. He was awarded £5,807.14, but also ordered to pay £1,796.26 in costs.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Key facts
- The claimant was employed by the respondent as a security officer.
- The claimant was dismissed on 3 September 2020.
- The tribunal found the dismissal was unfair.
- The claimant's age discrimination claim was dismissed.
- The claimant was awarded £5,807.14 in compensation.
- The claimant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs of £1,796.26.
Timeline
-
Dismissal
The claimant was dismissed from his employment.
-
Liability hearing
The tribunal heard the claim for unfair dismissal and age discrimination.
-
Liability judgment
The tribunal found the claimant was unfairly dismissed but dismissed the age discrimination claim.
-
Remedy hearing
The tribunal determined the compensation award and ordered costs against the claimant.
-
Reconsideration application
The claimant applied to reconsider the remedy judgment.
-
Reconsideration judgment
The tribunal amended the judgment to include recoupment provisions and set aside the interest order.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the security officer was unfairly dismissed due to a flawed redundancy process and whether his age was a factor in the decision to dismiss him.
The outcome
The tribunal decided that the claimant was unfairly dismissed because the redundancy process was not conducted fairly. The employer failed to follow a proper selection procedure or consult adequately.
The age discrimination claim was dismissed as there was no evidence that age played any part in the decision.
Compensation:
- Basic award: £2,826.90
- Compensatory award (loss of earnings and pension): £2,980.24
- Total: £5,807.14
The claimant was also ordered to pay the respondent's costs of £1,796.26 due to unreasonable conduct in the proceedings.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers must follow a fair redundancy process, including proper consultation and objective selection criteria, to avoid unfair dismissal claims.
- Bringing a discrimination claim without evidence can lead to a costs order against you, even if you win on another ground.
- Representing yourself in tribunal can be challenging; consider seeking advice before proceeding with multiple claims.
A flawed redundancy process
This case shows how a redundancy dismissal can be unfair even when there is a genuine business need to reduce staff. The security officer was dismissed by Amberstone Security Limited in September 2020, but the tribunal found that the company did not follow a fair procedure. There was no evidence of proper consultation or objective selection criteria, which are essential for a fair redundancy.
The claimant also alleged that his age was a factor in the decision, but the tribunal rejected that claim. The evidence did not support any link between his age and the dismissal.
Costs risk for unmeritorious claims
A notable aspect of this case is the costs order against the claimant. Even though he succeeded on unfair dismissal, the tribunal ordered him to pay £1,796.26 of the respondent's costs because of unreasonable conduct in the proceedings. This highlights the risk of pursuing weak claims, especially when representing yourself.
What this means for similar cases
Employees facing redundancy should ensure their employer follows a fair process. If you believe discrimination played a role, you need clear evidence to support that claim. Otherwise, you may face a costs order even if you win on other grounds. Employers, meanwhile, must remember that a genuine redundancy situation does not automatically make a dismissal fair — the process matters.
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.
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.
Group of former employees win claims for unpaid wages and holiday pay
A Leeds tribunal ordered NV Projects Ltd to pay a group of former employees for unauthorised deductions from wages, holiday pay, and failure to provide written statements. One employee also won a breach of contract claim for notice pay.