Ms. Julie Dennis v Buckingham Holdings Limited — 2022

Ms Julie Dennis brought a single claim of unfair dismissal against Buckingham Holdings Limited. The tribunal held that the respondent had established a potentially fair reason for dismissal, namely redundancy or, in the alternative, a substantial reason arising from a wider business reorganisation linked to the Covid-19 pandemic and changes to staffing and working practices. The tribunal accepted that the claimant’s Office Manager role had become less necessary, that the respondent genuinely intended to move to smaller premises, and that the claimant was in a redundancy or quasi-redundancy situation in March 2021.

The tribunal rejected the claimant’s case that she had been dismissed because she had raised AD’s business expense dishonesty or because of an historic debt issue raised by a former GP employer. It found those matters were not the reason for dismissal. On the evidence, the tribunal accepted Mr Sprague’s explanation that they played no part in his decision. The tribunal also accepted that the respondent was a small company but had considerable administrative and financial resources.

The claim succeeded because the dismissal procedure was found to be unreasonable and outside the band of reasonable responses. The claimant was not told her role was at risk until 9 March 2021, although Mr Sprague had begun considering redundancy by November 2020 and had decided to make the post redundant in December 2020. The tribunal found there had been no real consultation on the pool, selection criteria, or alternatives before the decision was effectively fixed. It also found that there were no redundancy selection criteria and that the process was driven solely by Mr Sprague.

The tribunal further found that the respondent did not make reasonable efforts to look for alternative employment for the claimant, including within associated companies BMS, CBE and IPL. It therefore held that the dismissal on 23 March 2021 was unfair under s.98(4) ERA 1996. On remedy, the tribunal held that no basic award was payable because the claimant had already received her statutory redundancy payment. It accepted that she mitigated her loss, assessed her likely loss at 12 months, and reduced the compensatory award by 50% because there was a real chance she would have been fairly dismissed in any event, resulting in a compensatory award and total award of £21,960.