Mr A Martin v British Car Auctions Ltd — 2023

Mr A Martin, aged 67, was dismissed by British Car Auctions Limited on 11 December 2020 after a redundancy consultation arising from the respondent’s Project Oak restructuring. The tribunal found the principal reason for dismissal was redundancy caused by the pandemic and the move to a more online business model, but it also recorded that liability only was being determined and that any Polkey issue would be dealt with separately.

For the age discrimination claim, the tribunal focused on the Administration Manager vacancy, where the claimant and Mr Duncan Baker were the internal candidates in the pool. It found there was no material difference between them in skills and qualifications for the role, and concluded that facts had been proved from which discrimination could be inferred. Those facts included Mr Entwistle’s criticism that the claimant referred to “old” processes and would not move the business forward in the “new world”, the contrast with his positive comments about Mr Baker, and the tribunal’s conclusion that the interview process had not genuinely explored the future-facing changes said to underpin the role.

The tribunal also relied on the final consultation meeting, where Mr Entwistle said that, from his experience and what he had seen in the past, he did not think the claimant was the right person for a situation where the business was being moved forward in the “new world”. It accepted the claimant’s evidence that this made him feel he had passed his “sell-by date”. The respondent failed to prove an explanation showing that the failure to offer the role and the dismissal were in no sense whatsoever because of age, and the tribunal said it did not find conscious age discrimination, but direct discrimination was nonetheless established on the balance of probabilities.

On unfair dismissal, the tribunal accepted that the restructure and redundancy exercise was, in general, a fair process and that warnings and consultation were given. However, it held that the Administration Manager selection process lacked transparency to such an extent that the resulting redundancy dismissal was unfair, and it also said the dismissal was tainted by age discrimination. The tribunal therefore upheld both the age discrimination and unfair dismissal claims.