JV [name redacted] v Toniiq Limited — 2025

The claimant brought claims for unfair dismissal, redundancy payment, notice pay, holiday pay and other payments. At the hearing she also made clear that, despite references in her particulars, she was not pursuing whistleblowing or health and safety detriment claims. The tribunal accepted that Toniiq Limited was a very small business, that it had experienced financial difficulties for several years, and that a redundancy situation most likely existed because the work the claimant had done was reduced and redistributed.

The tribunal found that the reason for dismissal was redundancy. It rejected the suggestion that dismissal was connected to any alleged complaints raised by the claimant. However, applying s.98(4) ERA 1996 and the redundancy authorities it cited, the tribunal held that the dismissal was unfair because there had been no meaningful consultation, no proper consideration of alternatives, no appeal, and the dismissal had effectively been decided before the claimant was told. The tribunal did not accept the respondent's argument that consultation would have been futile.

On remedy, the tribunal held that the basic award was subsumed within redundancy pay, which it found had already been correctly paid, so no basic award was awarded. It awarded one month's net pay of £3,417 for lost earnings and £650 for loss of statutory rights, making a total award of £4,067. The claims for redundancy payment, notice pay, holiday pay and other payments were dismissed because the tribunal was not satisfied that any further underpayment or unpaid sum had been proved.