1. Sweta Shah 2. Aabha Goel 3. Pinkesh Kishor 4. Iram Khatri v Bank of Baroda UK Ltd — 2026

Sweta Shah, Aabha Goel, Pinkesh Kishor and Iram Khatri were dismissed by reason of redundancy in 2024 or 2025. Each had received an enhanced redundancy payment, but at a lower level than the formula in paragraph 9(b) of the Employment Security Agreement dated 11 November 1994 (ESA). The tribunal rejected the respondent's argument that the ESA formula applied only when the bank invited voluntary applications and found that it applied to any redundancy situation covered by the agreement.

The claimants' appointment letters expressly stated that the Recognition and Procedure Agreement dated 22 July 1993 (RPA) applied to them. The tribunal found a direct link between the RPA, which identified principles of redundancy and resulting arrangements as a subject for negotiation, and the later ESA, which supplied the detailed redundancy provisions. The four-weeks-remuneration-per-completed-year formula in paragraph 9(b), subject to a maximum of 78 weeks and inclusive of statutory entitlement, was apt for incorporation. References to and inclusion of the RPA and ESA in personnel policies from 2015 to 2019 supported the finding that both agreements were expressly incorporated into the claimants' contracts.

The tribunal alternatively found, on the balance of probabilities, that the ESA term was incorporated by custom and practice. It considered the limited history of comparable redundancies, including the 1999 voluntary redundancy exercise, alongside publication through personnel policies, repeated references to the ESA in communications, the absence of wording suggesting discretion or an ex gratia payment, and paragraph 9(b)'s mandatory and certain language. Although there was little evidence that the claimants knew of the term and no earlier compulsory redundancy exercise, the tribunal concluded that the claimants had established implied incorporation.

The respondent therefore breached the claimants' contracts by failing to calculate their redundancy payments under paragraph 9(b) of the ESA, and the claims succeeded. The tribunal did not determine the sums payable in this judgment; it directed that a preliminary hearing be arranged to decide how the claims should proceed.