Office assistant dismissed after husband's business fallout: sham redundancy costs employer £17,235
An office assistant with seven years' service was unfairly dismissed after her husband fell out with the company director. The tribunal found the redundancy was a sham and awarded £17,235.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #sham-redundancy
- #acas-code-uplift
- #strike-out
- #no-fair-procedure
- #family-business
Key facts
- Claimant was employed as an Office Assistant from 3 August 2015.
- On 15 March 2022, respondent told claimant she was being made redundant.
- Claimant's employment terminated on 22 April 2022.
- Respondent's response was struck out for non-compliance with tribunal orders.
- Tribunal found the real reason for dismissal was not redundancy but Mr Daley's fears about claimant's knowledge of her husband's business.
- No fair redundancy procedure was followed and no redundancy payment was made.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began working as an Office Assistant for UK Atlantis Ltd.
-
First redundancy threat
Claimant's husband told Mr Daley he would not work with him; Mr Daley told claimant she would be made redundant.
-
Reconciliation
Mr Stratham and Mr Daley reconciled; claimant told her job was safe.
-
Second resignation
Claimant's husband again told Mr Daley he no longer wished to work for him.
-
Redundancy announced
Mr Daley told claimant she was being made redundant.
-
Settlement agreement offered
Mr Daley gave claimant a settlement agreement and pressured her to sign; she did not sign and was told to finish employment that day.
-
Employment terminated
Claimant's employment ended.
-
ET1 filed
Claimant filed her claim for unfair dismissal.
-
Response struck out
Employment Judge Moore struck out the respondent's response for non-compliance.
-
Hearing and judgment
Employment Judge Brady held a hearing and found the dismissal unfair, awarding £17,235.00.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was unfairly dismissed, specifically whether the reason for dismissal was genuine redundancy or a sham, and whether a fair procedure was followed.
The outcome
The tribunal found the dismissal unfair. The respondent's response had been struck out for non-compliance, so the tribunal heard only the claimant's evidence.
- Basic award: £4,579.29
- Compensatory award: £10,546.33, plus a 20% uplift for failing to follow the ACAS code of practice, totalling £12,655.60
- Total award: £17,235.00
No reduction was made for contributory fault or Polkey (chance of fair dismissal).
Lessons & takeaways
- If you are told you are being made redundant but suspect the real reason is personal, keep records of any conversations that suggest a different motive.
- Employers who fail to comply with tribunal orders risk having their defence struck out, effectively losing the case by default.
- A genuine redundancy process requires proper consultation, objective selection criteria, and consideration of alternative roles — skipping these steps can lead to a finding of unfair dismissal.
- Using redundancy as a pretext to dismiss an employee for other reasons is a 'sham redundancy' and will likely be found unfair.
A redundancy that wasn't what it seemed
This case shows how a personal dispute between business partners can spill over into an employee's dismissal, even when the employee herself is not involved. The claimant, an office assistant, had worked for UK Atlantis Ltd for seven years. Her husband also worked for the company. When her husband fell out with the director, Mr Daley, on two separate occasions, the claimant was told she would be made redundant — only for the threat to be withdrawn when the men reconciled. The second time, in March 2022, the redundancy went ahead.
The tribunal found that the real reason for dismissal was not redundancy but Mr Daley's fear that the claimant might share information about her husband's business. No fair redundancy procedure was followed: there was no consultation, no objective selection criteria, and no search for alternative roles. The claimant was given a settlement agreement and pressured to sign, and when she refused, she was told to leave that day.
What the employer could have done differently
UK Atlantis Ltd could have avoided this outcome by conducting a genuine redundancy process. That would have involved consulting with the claimant, considering alternatives, and applying fair selection criteria. Even if the redundancy was genuine, failing to follow a fair procedure would still have made the dismissal unfair. The company also failed to engage with the tribunal process, leading to its defence being struck out.
Why this matters for similar claims
This case is a reminder that tribunals will look behind the label of 'redundancy' to see if it is the real reason. If you suspect you have been dismissed for a different reason — such as a personal grudge or a family dispute — you may have a claim for unfair dismissal. The 20% uplift for failing to follow the ACAS code also shows that employers who ignore proper procedures can face higher compensation.
Similar cases
Registered manager dismissed by text in sham redundancy: no consultation, role filled by director's relative
A registered manager was unfairly dismissed after being told by text to attend a Zoom meeting where she was given two weeks' notice for redundancy. The tribunal found no genuine redundancy and awarded £14,153.
Employer's failure to comply with tribunal orders leads to strike-out of response
A tribunal struck out Cavendish Learning Limited's response after repeated failures to comply with case management orders, leaving the claimant's unfair dismissal and discrimination claims undefended.
Senior Quantity Surveyor unfairly dismissed after sham redundancy following suspension
A senior quantity surveyor with six years' service was unfairly dismissed after his employer called it redundancy but the tribunal found the real reason was conduct or capability. He was awarded £38,225.
Dismissed on the day of a TUPE transfer: automatic unfair dismissal and age discrimination
A production manager with 13 years' service was dismissed without notice on the day his employment transferred to a new company. The tribunal found automatic unfair dismissal and direct age discrimination, awarding over £130,000.