Cases→2221546/2024

Claimant v Wilson James Ltd

16 September 2025Before Employment Judge A M SnelsonLondon Centralremote video

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Unlawful Deduction from Wagesfailed

The tribunal found the claim was legally misconceived as it was in substance a wrongful dismissal claim (damages for short notice) which cannot be pursued under the unlawful deductions jurisdiction following Delaney v Staples. The claimant had explicitly eschewed bringing a breach of contract claim. Even on the merits, the tribunal found compelling circumstantial evidence, including the claimant's own CV, that his continuous employment began in July 2014, not 2013, and rejected his explanations as not credible.

Unfair Dismissalfailed

The tribunal was satisfied the reason for dismissal was genuine redundancy. The respondent conducted proper collective and individual consultation, used fair and balanced selection criteria focused on skills and performance, applied the scheme fairly (the claimant scored 24/35, below the 25 pass mark, with one point added on appeal), and made alternative employment opportunities available. The claimant failed to pursue alternative roles despite being able to access vacancies. The tribunal found the dismissal fell well within the band of reasonable responses and was procedurally and substantively fair.

Direct Discrimination(race)withdrawn

Withdrawn by claimant at the start of the final hearing

Direct Discrimination(sex)withdrawn

Withdrawn by claimant at the start of the final hearing

Discrimination Arising from Disability (s.15)(disability)withdrawn

Withdrawn by claimant at the start of the final hearing

Direct Discrimination(age)withdrawn

Withdrawn by claimant at the start of the final hearing

Facts

The claimant was a security officer employed from July 2013 and dismissed for redundancy in April 2024. The respondent maintained his continuous service began in July 2014 following a break, affecting his notice entitlement. The claimant was scored 24/35 in a redundancy selection exercise (pass mark 25) following closure of his site. He challenged his scores on appeal (one point added) and dismissal (rejected). He withdrew all discrimination claims at hearing.

Decision

The tribunal dismissed both claims. The unlawful deductions claim was legally misconceived as it was in substance a wrongful dismissal claim which cannot be brought under Part II ERA 1996, and in any event the tribunal found the respondent proved continuity began in 2014 based on compelling circumstantial evidence including the claimant's own CV. The unfair dismissal claim failed because the redundancy was genuine, consultation was proper, selection criteria were fair and appropriately applied, and the claimant failed to pursue available alternative employment.

Practical note

A claim framed as unlawful deductions but which is in substance a claim for damages for short notice is legally misconceived and must be brought as a breach of contract claim; redundancy dismissals will be fair where employers use reasonable, skills-based selection criteria, conduct proper consultation, and make reasonable efforts to assist employees in finding alternative roles.

Legal authorities cited

Post Office v Foley; HSBC Bank v Madden [2000] IRLR 827 CAWilliams v Compair Maxam [1982] ICR 156Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd v Hitt [2003] ICR 111Iceland Frozen Foods v Jones [1983] ICR 17Delaney v Staples (t/a De Montford Recruitment) [1992] ICR 483 HL

Statutes

ERA 1996 s.98Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England & Wales) Order 1994ERA 1996 s.27(1)ERA 1996 s.139(1)(b)

Case details

Case number
2221546/2024
Decision date
16 September 2025
Hearing type
full merits
Hearing days
3
Classification
contested

Respondent

Name
Wilson James Ltd
Sector
professional services
Represented
Yes
Rep type
lay rep

Employment details

Role
security officer
Service
9 years

Claimant representation

Represented
Yes
Rep type
lay rep
Search for this judgment on GOV.UK →