Mr. N. Mochrie v Mr. Quartson, Rep. CSY Architects Ltd. — 2025

The only claim pursued at the final hearing was the Claimant’s claim for a statutory redundancy payment under ss.163-164 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The tribunal found that the Respondent dismissed Mr N. Mochrie for performance reasons, not redundancy, and that the redundancy payment claim was not well founded and was dismissed.

The tribunal accepted that Mr Strachan’s concerns about the Claimant’s performance were genuinely held and were aimed at improvement. The issue was not the quality of the Claimant’s work but his productivity, in the sense that he was taking too long to complete the work required, and the Respondent wanted him to speed up his work and change how he engaged with colleagues. The tribunal found that these concerns were raised in the April 2023 review, followed up in later review meetings, and ultimately formed the basis for the dismissal letter of 31 May 2024.

Applying s.139(1) and s.163(2) ERA 1996, the tribunal found that at the time of dismissal the Respondent had not ceased, and did not intend to cease, carrying on its architectural business or the work of a Senior Architect. It found that the Respondent was not in business or financial difficulty, was not seeking to reduce headcount, and continued to have a requirement for Senior Architects at both the business level and at the Dalkeith office. The reference in the dismissal letter to “financial strain” was treated as a reference to the financial effects of underperformance, not evidence of redundancy.

The tribunal also found that the offer to discuss a self-employed consultancy arrangement did not show that the requirement for employees to carry out Senior Architect work had ceased or diminished. It was treated as an attempt to shift the financial consequences of insufficient productivity. The tribunal therefore held that the Respondent had discharged the burden of proving that the dismissal was not by reason of redundancy.