Global Head of Marketing dismissed for redundancy after salary stopped: £89,013 awarded
A tribunal found that a medical technology company unfairly dismissed its Global Head of Marketing by making him redundant without consultation, and awarded him £89,013 including £74,800 in unpaid salary.
2 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as Global Head of Marketing from 1 April 2020 until 28 August 2022.
- The respondent stopped paying the claimant's salary from August 2021 onwards due to financial difficulties caused by the Covid-19 pandemic.
- The respondent dismissed the claimant by letter dated 28 May 2022 citing redundancy.
- The tribunal found that the dismissal was procedurally unfair due to lack of consultation and failure to consider alternatives.
- The respondent owed the claimant £74,800 in unpaid salary, which was not disputed.
Timeline
-
Employment commenced
The claimant started employment as Global Head of Marketing under a written contract.
-
First LRE system sale
The respondent sold its first LRE device system, triggering a salary increase that was not paid.
-
Salary payments ceased
The respondent stopped paying the claimant's salary due to financial difficulties.
-
Claimant requested payment
The claimant emailed Mr Laskow-Pooley requesting payment of salary arrears.
-
Claimant contacted ACAS
The claimant informed the respondent he was contemplating tribunal proceedings.
-
Zoom meeting
A meeting was held where the decision to dismiss the claimant was taken but not clearly communicated.
-
Dismissal letter sent
The claimant received a letter terminating his employment on grounds of redundancy, with notice expiring 28 August 2022.
-
Employment ended
The claimant's last day of employment.
-
Claim presented
The claimant presented his claim to the tribunal.
-
Hearing day 1
First day of the substantive hearing held via Cloud Video Platform.
-
Hearing day 2
Second day of the substantive hearing.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was unfairly dismissed by reason of redundancy and whether the respondent unlawfully deducted wages by failing to pay salary from August 2021.
The outcome
The tribunal found in favour of the claimant on both claims. The dismissal was procedurally unfair due to a complete lack of consultation and failure to consider alternatives. The respondent also admitted it owed £74,800 in unpaid salary.
Compensation:
- Basic Award: £1,713
- Compensatory Award: £12,500 (including £500 for loss of statutory rights)
- Arrears of pay: £74,800
- Total: £89,013
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers must consult employees before making them redundant, even if the business is in financial difficulty.
- Stopping an employee's salary without agreement is an unlawful deduction of wages, regardless of the company's financial state.
- A redundancy dismissal without any consultation or consideration of alternatives will almost certainly be unfair.
- Employees who are not paid for a prolonged period should consider raising a formal grievance and seeking legal advice promptly.
A redundancy without a conversation
The case of a Global Head of Marketing at LREsystem Limited shows what can happen when an employer treats redundancy as a unilateral decision rather than a process. The claimant had been with the company for just over two years when, in May 2022, he received a letter terminating his employment on grounds of redundancy. There had been no consultation, no discussion about alternatives, and no warning. The decision had been taken in a Zoom meeting that the claimant attended, but the outcome was not clearly communicated until the letter arrived.
By that point, the claimant had not been paid his salary for nearly a year. The company, a medical technology start-up, had stopped paying him in August 2021, citing financial difficulties caused by the Covid-19 pandemic. Despite repeated requests, the arrears mounted to £74,800. The respondent did not dispute that this money was owed, but had simply not paid it.
What the employer could have done differently
The tribunal found that the redundancy dismissal was procedurally unfair. The employer had a duty to consult the claimant, to consider whether there were any alternatives to redundancy, and to follow a fair process. None of that happened. Even if the company's financial situation was genuine, that does not exempt an employer from its obligations. A fair process would have involved at least one meeting to explain the situation, listen to the employee's ideas, and consider whether any other roles or measures could avoid dismissal.
On the unpaid salary, the position was even clearer. The contract of employment provided for a monthly salary of £5,000, and the respondent stopped paying it without any agreement from the claimant. The tribunal noted that the company's financial difficulties did not give it the right to unilaterally withhold wages.
Why this matters for similar claims
This case is a reminder that redundancy is not a shortcut to dismissal. Even in difficult circumstances, employees are entitled to a fair process. For employees who have not been paid, the law is clear: wages must be paid for work done, and failure to do so is an unlawful deduction. The total award of £89,013 reflects both the unfair dismissal and the significant arrears of pay, and shows that tribunals will take a firm line where employers ignore their basic obligations.
Similar cases
Administrator made redundant by small charity: dismissal fair despite consultation shortcomings
An employment tribunal has ruled that a small charity's decision to make a long-serving administrator redundant was fair, even though the consultation process was flawed. No compensation was awarded.
Car valet dismissed for abusive language: procedural unfairness but no compensation awarded
A car valet with six years' service was unfairly dismissed after using foul language towards a colleague, but the tribunal awarded no compensation because his conduct wholly caused his dismissal.
Field engineers dismissed after employer wrongly claimed TUPE transfer: £114,504 awarded
Four field engineers were unfairly dismissed when their employer told them they had transferred to a new contractor under TUPE, but no transfer had occurred. The tribunal awarded over £114,000 in total.
Yard controller with 30 years' service unfairly dismissed after radio failure caused collision
A yard controller with 30 years' service was unfairly dismissed after a 16-second delay in stopping a train due to a radio failure. The tribunal found the employer's investigation was inadequate and the procedure fell outside the range of reasonable responses.