Head of Compliance dismissed after TUPE transfer: redundancy was a sham
A head of compliance with 9 years' service was automatically unfairly dismissed when her redundancy was driven by a TUPE transfer, not genuine redundancy. The tribunal found the employer failed to consult properly.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #tupe-transfer
- #redundancy
- #head-of-compliance
- #financial-services
- #polkey-reduction
- #failure-to-consult
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as Head of Compliance (Financial Services) from 21 September 2011.
- On 8 March 2021, Connells Group acquired Countrywide Ltd.
- The claimant was dismissed on 30 April 2021 on grounds of redundancy.
- The tribunal found that the principal reason for dismissal was the TUPE transfer, not redundancy.
- The tribunal held that the claimant would have been fairly dismissed for redundancy had proper TUPE consultation occurred.
- The compensatory award is limited to 4 weeks' pay due to a Polkey reduction.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began employment with Countrywide PLC as Head of Compliance (Financial Services).
-
Acquisition
Connells Group acquired 100% of shares in Countrywide PLC, which became Countrywide Ltd.
-
Restructure planning
Meeting between Mr Newton, Mrs Raines and HR Director to discuss pooling similar roles.
-
At risk notification
Claimant informed her role was at risk of redundancy; three new 'Heads of' positions created.
-
First consultation meeting
Claimant queried why she was not placed in a pool; told her role did not match any new role by 50%.
-
Claimant challenges decision
Claimant emailed HR challenging the pooling decision.
-
Counter-proposal submitted
Claimant proposed alternative operating model for risk and compliance; later rejected by Board.
-
Final consultation meeting
Last consultation meeting held.
-
Redundancy confirmed
Final outcome letter sent confirming redundancy.
-
Dismissal
Claimant dismissed from employment.
-
Appeal lodged
Claimant appealed redundancy decision.
-
Appeal hearing
Appeal meeting chaired by Mr Twigg.
-
Appeal outcome
Claimant received appeal outcome letter.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the dismissal was automatically unfair because the real reason was the transfer of the business (TUPE), or whether it was a fair redundancy dismissal. Under TUPE regulations, a dismissal is automatically unfair if the transfer is the sole or principal reason for it, unless there is an economic, technical or organisational reason entailing changes in the workforce.
The outcome
The tribunal found that the claimant's dismissal was automatically unfair because the principal reason was the TUPE transfer, not redundancy. The employer had decided to restructure before consulting and failed to pool roles properly. However, the tribunal also found that, had proper consultation taken place, the claimant would have been fairly dismissed for redundancy. This is a Polkey reduction of 100%, meaning the compensatory award is limited to 4 weeks' pay (the basic award may still apply).
- Basic award: to be determined at remedy hearing
- Compensatory award: limited to 4 weeks' pay due to 100% Polkey reduction
- No contributory fault found
Lessons & takeaways
- If you are dismissed shortly after a TUPE transfer, check whether the real reason was the transfer itself – this can make the dismissal automatically unfair.
- Employers must carry out proper consultation and pooling before making redundancies after a TUPE transfer; failing to do so can lead to an automatic unfair dismissal finding.
- Even if a dismissal is automatically unfair, a tribunal may reduce compensation if it finds the employee would have been dismissed anyway (Polkey reduction).
- Length of service and role seniority can affect the strength of a claim – here, 9 years' service helped show the employer's process was inadequate.
When a redundancy is really a TUPE transfer dismissal
This case shows how important it is for employers to get the process right when making redundancies after a business acquisition. The claimant, a head of compliance with nine years' service, was dismissed just weeks after Connells Group bought Countrywide Ltd. The tribunal found that the redundancy was a sham – the real reason was the transfer itself.
The employer had decided to restructure before any consultation took place. They created new roles that did not match the claimant's existing role, and failed to put her in a proper pool for comparison. The tribunal accepted that the claimant would have been made redundant anyway, but that did not save the employer from a finding of automatic unfair dismissal.
What the employer could have done differently
The key failure was the lack of genuine consultation about the TUPE transfer. The employer should have considered whether there was an economic, technical or organisational reason for the dismissals – and if so, consulted properly. Instead, they rushed ahead with a pre-determined plan. The tribunal noted that the claimant's own counter-proposal for a different operating model was rejected by the board without proper consideration.
Why this matters for similar claims
This case is a reminder that TUPE protections are strong. Employees who are dismissed because of a transfer can claim automatic unfair dismissal, regardless of length of service. However, the Polkey reduction here shows that even a winning claim may result in limited compensation if the tribunal thinks the employee would have been dismissed anyway. The remedy hearing will determine the exact amount, but the claimant is likely to receive only a few weeks' pay.
For employees in similar situations, it is worth challenging the employer's reasoning early – and keeping evidence of any alternative proposals you make. The outcome also highlights the importance of legal representation: the claimant represented herself against experienced counsel, which may have affected the result.
Similar cases
Paralegal dismissed while pregnant: redundancy that failed to consult fairly
A paralegal with 3.5 years' service was unfairly dismissed and discriminated against due to pregnancy when her employer made her redundant without proper consultation or considering alternative roles. The tribunal awarded £18,792.26.
Director of Partnerships made redundant: dismissal unfair but compensation wiped out
A director of partnerships was unfairly dismissed for redundancy due to a lack of consultation, but the tribunal reduced his compensation to nil because the redundancy was inevitable. He also won £1,211 for an unlawful deduction from wages.
Missed redundancy interview: long-serving project manager loses unfair dismissal claim
A project manager with 10 years' service was fairly dismissed for redundancy after failing to attend a competitive interview. The tribunal rejected claims that his role as an employee representative or his grievances were the real reason.
Business Development Manager dismissed after raising grievance: redundancy or retaliation?
A tribunal found that a Business Development Manager was unfairly dismissed because the real reason was his grievance, not redundancy. The case highlights the risks of dismissing a worker who has raised concerns.