Mr G Singh Respondent 1: Bradford College Respondent 2: Inprint & Design Limited v Respondent — 2019

The tribunal found that Bradford College and Inprint & Design Ltd had identified a genuine redundancy situation arising from financial pressure and cost-saving decisions in 2017. It accepted that the claimant was a long-serving employee with an exemplary record, but concluded that his deputy managing director role was no longer required. The direct age discrimination complaint failed because the tribunal found the dismissal was driven by redundancy and not by any wish to stop the claimant reaching his final salary pension at age 55. The disability discrimination complaint was withdrawn and dismissed.

On unfair dismissal, the tribunal accepted redundancy as the potentially fair reason under section 98(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and recorded that the respondent had started consultation on 1 May 2018, sent follow-up letters, offered occupational health support, and signposted alternative methods of communication and redeployment. The minority view was that the respondent had acted reasonably, had given adequate warning, and could not keep the consultation open indefinitely when the claimant did not engage.

The majority nevertheless held that, after the claimant's letter of 2 June 2018 explaining that he was taking medication for depression, anxiety and sleep disorder and asking for time to recover, the respondent should have arranged another occupational health appointment before concluding the consultation process. On that basis the unfair dismissal complaint succeeded. The judgment did not fix compensation and instead listed a separate remedy hearing; the majority also noted that the likely overall outcome would still have been redundancy, but that issue was left for the remedy stage.