Claimant v Timbrell v 4th Utility Holdings Ltd — 2023

The claimant, Mr Timbrell, was dismissed after the respondent decided in March and April 2021 to close its Housebuilder Division and focus on new build MDU and retrofit work. The tribunal found there was a redundancy state of affairs because the business no longer required the same level of business development work in that area, and no one was recruited into a comparable role after his departure.

Mr Timbrell argued that the redundancy process was a sham designed to secure his shares, but the tribunal rejected that case. It accepted that Tony Hughes was unhappy about the claimant's performance by September 2020, but found that the board's decision to close the division was genuinely based on the strategic review, including the longer payback period, low take-up rates and lack of Wayleave agreements for housebuilder work. The tribunal held that the dismissal was broadly attributable to redundancy and not a pretext for obtaining the claimant's shareholding.

On fairness, the tribunal held that the selection pool of three business development employees, the four selection criteria, and the way the criteria were scored fell within the range of reasonable responses under section 98(4) ERA 1996. It accepted criterion 4, involving wider business areas, as relevant to the remaining roles, and it accepted the respondent's explanation for discounting housebuilder sales when scoring criteria 1 and 2 because that work related to referral agreements and was outside the respondent's future strategy. The tribunal also found that the consultation process and the appeal heard by Stuart Lees did not make the dismissal unfair. The holiday pay complaint was withdrawn by the claimant and did not proceed to a substantive decision.