This guide is maintained as a current resource for July 2026 and covers only the laws of England and Wales. Information is for general guidance, not legal advice. Consult a qualified solicitor for advice specific to your situation.
Keep up with evolving employment law. Explore recent tribunal rulings on redundancy, focusing on unfair dismissal, consultation errors, and discrimination claims.
Employment tribunal decisions shape how redundancy law is applied in practice across England and Wales. Recent judgments from Employment Tribunals and Employment Appeal Tribunals (EAT) illustrate how legal principles on redundancy pay, unfair dismissal, discrimination and procedural fairness are interpreted. Understanding these outcomes helps employers comply with statutory duties and employees recognise the circumstances in which claims may succeed or fail. This article outlines notable recent tribunal decisions and related appellate guidance, explaining their significance, legal context, and practical implications for redundancy processes.
1. Ms M Ottewill v Iceland Foods Ltd – Redundancy and Disability/Unfair Dismissal
In a January/February 2025 Employment Tribunal decision, the claimant, who had long service with a supermarket chain, brought claims including unfair dismissal and disability discrimination in the context of her dismissal. The tribunal, sitting in Southampton, heard evidence in January 2025 and dismissed both the unfair dismissal and discrimination claims. On reconsideration, the tribunal refused to vary the original judgment, noting there was no reasonable prospect of the decision being changed. The written reasons emphasised the tribunal's procedural approach in reviewing documentary evidence and claimant requests for reconsideration under Rule 70 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules.
Key takeaway: Tribunals may dismiss claims on facts and law where procedural and substantive elements do not establish unlawful redundancy or discrimination, and reconsideration is rarely granted absent compelling new grounds.
2. Miss J Hughes v Tesco Stores Ltd – Redundancy Payment Claim Strike‑Out
In a separate Employment Tribunal judgment from January 2025, the claimant alleged she lost out financially by deferring her redundancy and continuing on a fixed‑term contract. Tesco made a strike‑out application on grounds that the claim had no reasonable prospects of success. The tribunal granted the strike‑out, observing that the claimant failed actively to pursue the matter and did not return after an adjournment; it also noted that statutory and enhanced redundancy pay had been made in accordance with the employer's terms.
Key takeaway: Tribunals will strike out claims that lack legal merit or active pursuit, especially where statutory and enhanced pay have been provided and the claimant fails to prosecute the case.
3. Micro Focus Ltd v Mildenhall (EAT) – Redundancy and Appeal Cases
While not a redundancy judgment in isolation, the Employment Appeal Tribunal's decision list for early 2026 includes Micro Focus Ltd v Mr James Mildenhall [2025] EAT 188, a case that relates to how procedural and substantive issues are evaluated on appeal. Tribunal and EAT decisions on job losses often turn on correct application of reason for dismissal, procedural fairness and scope of consultation.
Key takeaway: On appeal, tribunals consider both the fairness of the redundancy process and legal interpretation of employment rights, illustrating the importance of thorough documentation and procedure at first instance.
4. Collective Consultation and Protective Awards (Amendments Affecting Tribunals)
Changes to law affecting redundancy claims are not tribunal decisions per se but directly influence outcomes. Amendments to the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 effective 20 January 2025 allow tribunals to increase or reduce protective awards by up to 25 per cent for unreasonable failure to comply with the statutory Code or other applicable codes during collective redundancy and fire and rehire processes. This statutory change informs tribunal assessment of procedural compliance and potential awards.
Key takeaway: Legal reforms expanding tribunal powers to adjust protective awards signal increasing emphasis on procedural compliance in collective redundancies, potentially leading to higher compensation where consultation duties are breached.
5. Tata Consultancy Services Redundancy Allegations (Unfair & Discrimination Proceeding)
In a high‑profile tribunal case heard in 2025, three former employees alleged that a redundancy programme at Tata Consultancy Services unfairly targeted older, non‑Indian nationals. The tribunal heard that the company allegedly used selection processes that disadvantaged certain groups and that contracts were manipulated to shift “billable” work away from affected staff. Allegations included unfair and discriminatory redundancy treatment; the case was ongoing at the tribunal stage, and TCS denied wrongdoing.
Key takeaway: Allegations of discriminatory redundancy practices based on age or nationality underscore that tribunals will examine selection processes and workforce impacts closely, especially where protected characteristics are implicated.
6. Failing to Consult Promptly: EAT on Redundancy Procedure
Although not a full redundancy judgment on its own, the Employment Appeal Tribunal has reaffirmed that a lack of meaningful workforce consultation at an early or formative stage can render a redundancy dismissal unfair. In De Bank Haycocks v ADP RPO UK Ltd, the claimant was selected for redundancy without consultation before scoring exercises were applied. The EAT allowed the unfair dismissal appeal, emphasising that absence of early consultation - even where collective consultation thresholds were not met - was unfair.
Key takeaway: Tribunals and EAT decisions stress that consultation must be meaningful and not merely a formality. Failure to engage employees before key decisions may justify claims of unfair dismissal.
Practical Implications for Employers and Employees
For Employers:
- Procedure matters: Tribunals will scrutinise consultation timing, selection criteria and documentation - procedural lapses can lead to unfair dismissal findings or increased protective awards.
- Clarity in communications: Clear explanations of redundancy options, including deferral or alternative roles, can reduce strike‑out risks and misunderstandings, as seen in the Tesco strike‑out case.
- Protected characteristics: Allegations of discriminatory redundancy practices may lead to complex tribunal litigation where selection processes disproportionately affect certain groups.
For Employees:
- Active participation: Failing to pursue claims actively can lead to strike‑outs; early medical or legal representation and documentation are crucial.
- Consultation evidence: Records of consultation meetings, alternative roles offered, and procedural steps will be central to tribunal evaluations.
- Legal deadlines: Claims such as unfair dismissal and redundancy pay have strict time limits; initiating ACAS Early Conciliation promptly preserves rights.
Common Questions
Are Employment Tribunal decisions binding on all future cases?
Tribunal decisions are not binding precedents in the same way as higher court judgments, but they inform practice and provide persuasive authority on how laws are applied. Higher court decisions (EAT, High Court, Court of Appeal, Supreme Court) carry greater weight.
Can procedural errors always lead to unfair dismissal claims succeeding?
Not always. Tribunals consider whether procedural errors actually caused unfairness. Minor errors that do not affect the outcome (a Polkey situation) may reduce compensation but not nullify the dismissal.
What happens when a claim is struck out?
A claim struck out for lack of merit or prosecution does not proceed to a full hearing, and the claimant may be ordered to pay costs or provide a deposit to continue.
Key Takeaways
Recent redundancy‑related tribunal decisions in England and Wales highlight key legal themes: the importance of meaningful consultation, strict adherence to procedural fairness, careful documentation of redundancy processes, and vigilance against discriminatory practices. Tribunals will enforce statutory rights strictly, striking out unmeritorious claims while also protecting employees where employers fail to observe their duties. Employers and employees alike should remain informed of tribunal outcomes, statutory reforms (such as protective award adjustments), and deadlines to ensure compliance and effective representation of their interests.
