Case 2305061/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. M. Crawford-Thomas v Collinson (Central Services) Ltd — 2026
- Case reference
- 2305061/2024
- Decision date
- 2 April 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sudra
- Venue
- London South
- Panel members
- Ms. E. Whitlam, Ms. N. O'Hare
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr. M. Crawford-Thomas
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr. Crawford-Thomas was employed by Collinson (Central Services) Limited as Financial Crime Manager from 1 February 2009 until his dismissal on 14 March 2024. After Louise Smith joined as his line manager in October 2023, she carried out a review of the Risk Team. The tribunal accepted that the respondent genuinely believed the need for the claimant's role had diminished because Refinitiv automated a significant part of the work, and that the business also needed a new senior role to deal with AI-related, cyber and other risk.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy, but the consultation was not meaningful in relation to alternative employment and explanation of the new structure. The tribunal nevertheless accepted that, had a fair process taken place, the claimant would still have been made redundant. | Upheld | — | — |
| Age discrimination | The tribunal found no evidential basis that age was the reason for any less favourable treatment. The burden of proof did not shift to the respondent, and the complaint was dismissed. | Dismissed | Age | — |
Legal tests applied
11 references- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- Williams and ors v. Compair Maxam Ltd
- Polkey v. A E Dayton Services
- R v. British Coal Corporation ex p Price (No 3)
- s.13 Equality Act 2010
- s.136 Equality Act 2010
- Nagarajan v. London Regional Transport
- Igen Ltd v. Wong
- Madarassy v. Nomura International plc
- Efobi v. Royal Mail Group Ltd
- Murray and anor v. Foyle Meats Ltd
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.