Mr L Cunningham v MMT Limited — 2026

Luke Cunningham’s unfair dismissal claim against MMT Limited succeeded. He transferred to MMT as a Creative Technologist in September 2024, retaining continuous service from January 2015. MMT dismissed him with effect from 23 May 2025, relying on redundancy following a decision to replace its internally developed MMAP platform with third-party technology. The tribunal found that MMT had not established redundancy or another potentially fair reason for dismissal.

The tribunal rejected MMT’s account that Mr Cunningham’s work was limited to demonstrations and prototypes. The approved Jump project documents assigned him cloud systems engineering and senior server-side engineering work to produce a usable product. His job title did not describe the work he actually performed, and no job description had been prepared. The tribunal found that his work involved broad, high-level technical skills and that MMT knew he was developing a viable product.

Applying section 139 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and the three-stage test in Safeway Stores v Burrel, the tribunal found that the requirement for this work had not ceased or diminished. Although work on MMAP stopped, Jump development was intended to continue using a different underlying platform. Messages from Ben Rudman called for Jump to move forward promptly. MMT engaged Mr Crossley in June 2025, and he worked on Jump from July until the project was eventually mothballed around December. Any temporary pause was comparable to the situation in Whitbread v Flattery. The tribunal also rejected the argument that the revised project required work of a different kind from that performed by Mr Cunningham.

Internal messages showed that the decision to dismiss had been reached between 7 and 15 April 2025, before consultation began. The tribunal found that Mark Rodseth did not want to work with Mr Cunningham and that Mr Rudman and Rebecca Crook decided to bring about his dismissal, tasking Nick Rudd with the process. It rejected the account that Mr Rudd first decided on dismissal at the final consultation meeting. MMT failed to establish its asserted reason, and no other reason was advanced, so it did not meet the requirements of section 98(1).

The tribunal also considered procedural fairness under section 98(4), finding that the dismissal would have been unfair even if redundancy had been established. MMT had not genuinely considered the selection pool and had not consulted Mr Cunningham before placing him in a pool of one. It had not properly analysed his work or skills. Despite numerous lengthy meetings and invitations to propose alternatives, the decision was already settled. Applying the principles in Capita Hartshead v Byard, Mogane and Valimulla, the tribunal treated the failures concerning the pool and consultation as material defects.

The appeal was also unfair. Ms Crook relied on an asserted comprehensive assessment of Mr Cunningham’s skills and possible retraining which the tribunal found had not taken place. Mr Rodseth’s assessment was cursory; he had not reviewed Mr Cunningham’s CV or discussed his technical background with him. The tribunal made no finding on whether the Principal Cloud Architect vacancy should have been offered or discussed, or whether Mr Crossley’s role largely replaced Mr Cunningham, because those questions were unnecessary to decide the claim. It did not base its decision on the failure to address the grievance separately. No monetary remedy was determined in this judgment.