Mr M Cooper v Spicerhaart Group Services Limited (First Respondent) Just Mortgages Limited (Second Respondent) Heard: in Birmingham by CVP — 2022

Mr M Cooper was employed from 3 July 2017 and worked as one of two New Homes Business Development Managers. The respondent decided during furlough to reduce the role from two posts to one and began a redundancy process in late September 2021. The claimant and Mr Scott were told they were at risk, were asked to compete for the remaining role, and were interviewed on 11 October 2021. The tribunal found that the process was rushed and poorly documented, with no individual consultation after the group meeting, insufficient notice of the presentation and interview criteria, no clear explanation of the panel constitution, and no objective selection criteria or moderation.

Applying section 98 ERA 1996 and section 98(4), the tribunal held that redundancy was a potentially fair reason for dismissal, but the selection process was unfair. It found that subjective interview scoring was used without benchmarks, that the role of John Phillips was opaque, and that the claimant's challenge to John Doughty's presence on the panel was not properly investigated or answered. The tribunal also held that the dismissal remained procedurally flawed because the claimant was dismissed immediately after the interview with no further consultation.

The appeal process compounded those defects. Kingswood Group recommended that the appeal be upheld on most grounds, but the respondent rejected that recommendation and did not communicate the dismissal of the appeal until 9 March 2022, nearly three months later. The tribunal found that delay prejudiced the claimant and that the appeal decision was unfair, with no clear independent decision-maker identified and no adequate justification for departing from the external recommendation.

On Polkey, the tribunal accepted that there was some chance the claimant would still have been dismissed, but rejected the respondent's case for a 100 percent reduction. It applied a 20 percent reduction to any compensatory award. On breach of contract, the tribunal held that pension contributions and health cover should have been paid during the notice period, but dismissed the death in service head because there was no quantifiable loss. The judgment was liability only and the quantum issues were left for a later remedy hearing; the health cover figure referred to in the evidence was £72.58 per month.