Claimant v GenSight Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found the dismissal was unfair due to lack of process and procedure. There was no warning or consultation, no formal selection pool identified, no selection criteria discussed or applied, and no consideration of alternatives to redundancy with staff input. The respondent acted unreasonably in not consulting with the claimant despite accepting the financial difficulties were genuine.
The tribunal found the claimant was not dismissed because of his age (66). He and his line manager Mr Flowerdew (aged 41) were both dismissed due to redundancy caused by the financial situation, termination of Project A, problems with client X, and Mr Munt's health issues. The termination was not because of the claimant's age but due to these other obvious factual reasons.
The allegation that the claimant was not permitted to do training on Projects B and C failed factually. The claimant was removed from Project B in June 2021, so there was no requirement for training in February 2022. He did not work on Project C. There was no evidence of formal structured training being provided to others. The allegations were also out of time by approximately two years.
The respondent's solicitor's letter of 2 May 2024 responding to the claimant's discrimination allegations was found to be an honest and reasonable response in the circumstances. It was not detrimental, oppressive or threatening. The response was simply the respondent protecting itself in litigation and did not seek to dissuade the claimant from pursuing a claim.
The harassment claim was subject to a deposit order. The claimant did not pay the deposit and the claim was therefore struck out.
Facts
The claimant, aged 66, was employed as a developer from July 2019 to March 2024. The respondent faced severe financial difficulties following the pandemic, client losses, and fraud involving $140,000 from their largest client. The managing director Mr Munt also faced serious health issues including stage 4 cancer. On 12 March 2024, after deciding to cancel Project A, Mr Munt summarily dismissed the claimant and his 41-year-old line manager Mr Flowerdew for redundancy without consultation or fair process. The claimant alleged age discrimination in the dismissal and claimed he had been excluded from training on newer technology projects.
Decision
The tribunal found the dismissal was unfair due to complete lack of consultation, warning, or selection process, but that the claimant would have been fairly dismissed within four weeks had proper procedure been followed. The age discrimination claims failed as the dismissal was genuinely due to redundancy (both the claimant and younger colleague dismissed), and the training exclusion allegations were out of time and not factually made out. Compensation was limited to four weeks' net pay (£3,364.55).
Practical note
Even in a genuine redundancy situation with severe financial pressures and a small employer, a complete absence of consultation and process will render a dismissal unfair, though compensation may be minimal where a Polkey assessment shows fair dismissal was inevitable within weeks.
Award breakdown
Adjustments
The tribunal found that if a fair procedure had been followed (consultation process taking four weeks), the claimant would have been fairly dismissed at the conclusion of that process based on performance concerns, need for line management, and working on projects without authorisation. Compensation limited to four weeks' net pay.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6005751/2024
- Decision date
- 30 September 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 6
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Name
- GenSight Limited
- Sector
- technology
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Developer
- Service
- 5 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No