In person For the v Emma Wilson — 2025

The Claimant worked as a part-time receptionist (17 hours per week over Thursdays and Saturdays) at the Respondent's Tulse Hill spa. On 4 January 2023 Emma Wilson, the owner and sole director, told the Claimant she was being let go to save costs and confirmed this by email the same day, giving four weeks' notice. The Tribunal accepted there was a genuine redundancy situation arising from a reduction in therapist hours and consequent loss of revenue.

However, the Tribunal found the redundancy procedure unreasonable and unfair. Emma Wilson selected the Claimant from a pool of two Tulse Hill receptionists without explaining the selection criteria, without giving the Claimant any opportunity to respond, and without any consultation; the only meeting took place on the Claimant's last day of employment when the decision had already been made. The Tribunal rejected the Respondent's argument that a fair procedure would have made no difference, noting that within two weeks a new receptionist, Fransys, was engaged for Friday work and ended up working further days, and that proper consultation might have enabled the Claimant to retain some or all of her hours.

The Claimant was awarded £2,302.82 as a compensatory award (13 weeks' loss of pay at 17 hrs x £10.42), with no basic award because she had already been paid her redundancy pay (s.122(4)(a) ERA). Her award was increased by two weeks' pay (£354.28) under s.38 Employment Act 2002 because she had no statement of employment particulars when proceedings were begun, the Tribunal declining to award four weeks given the Respondent was a very small company without an HR function and the Claimant had not requested a contract. The redundancy payment claim was dismissed because redundancy pay had already been received; the total award is £2,657.10.