Kevin Mills v FP Hurley and Sons Ltd — 2026

Kevin Mills succeeded in his unfair dismissal claim against FP Hurley and Sons Ltd following his redundancy on 25 October 2024. His complaints of wrongful dismissal and lack of written employment terms were dismissed. The tribunal admitted the claim under section 111(2)(b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 despite its presentation six days after the agreed deadline. It accepted that ACAS communications had left him reasonably ignorant of when the time limit ran and that he had presented his claim within a reasonable further period.

Mr Mills began working for FP Hurley as Operations Manager in August 2019. The tribunal found that he accepted a new role with its subsidiary, HFM Maintenance, from 1 February 2023, as a non-statutory director without shares. This was a move into a new role, rather than a transfer of his existing role under TUPE. Correspondence confirmed that his contractual terms remained unchanged. FP Hurley remained the sole respondent by agreement.

The tribunal accepted that redundancy was the real reason for dismissal and rejected the allegation that it was a sham intended to avoid paying profit share. Although HFM Maintenance had made profits in 2024, the wider group had reported an operating loss of just under £2.3 million for the year ended September 2023. The finance director also gave evidence of a £750,000 unpaid client debt and difficulties obtaining credit. The tribunal accepted that concerns about cash flow and future work led to the decision to cease HFM Maintenance's trading, and that removing Mr Mills' role fell within the range of reasonable responses.

The tribunal found that the consultation meetings genuinely explored business viability and alternatives to redundancy. The wording of letters announcing redundancy did not establish that the outcome had been predetermined. A selection pool containing only Mr Mills was reasonable because his director role was distinct, the subsidiary's two other employees held substantially different junior roles, and there were no comparable roles in the parent company. His former Operations Manager post no longer existed, and both parties agreed that the proposed CEF Bids Manager role was unsuitable.

The dismissal was nevertheless unfair because the respondent failed to consider and discuss suitable employment at a more junior level. A Mechanical Project Engineer vacancy advertised on 20 December 2024, followed by recruitment in spring 2025, supported the tribunal's finding that the business need arose around the time of dismissal and that the role was available then or very soon afterwards. Mr Mills had the qualifications for that work and said he would have accepted it. Given the companies' close links and the respondent's size and resources, it should have considered him for the vacancy and discussed it during consultation. His failure to suggest the role himself did not resolve the issue, since it had not yet been advertised.