Claimant v Flightscope Mevo UK Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The respondent conceded at the hearing that the claimant's dismissal was unfair because there was a failure to consult before dismissal. The tribunal found a genuine redundancy situation existed, but the process was fundamentally flawed. The tribunal concluded that had a fair 10-week consultation process been followed, the claimant would still have been fairly selected for redundancy, but the lack of any consultation rendered the dismissal unfair.
The claimant claimed failure to pay notice pay, but the tribunal found that although the respondent dismissed the claimant without working notice, the respondent paid 30 days' pay in lieu of notice. While there may have been a technical breach of contract in not giving notice, the financial compensation was provided, so the claim failed.
Facts
The claimant was employed from April 2021 as UK/Europe Marketing Manager by a golf technology company. From June 2022, a US marketing agency took over much of the digital marketing work. The respondent decided to centralise all marketing to the US and move to e-commerce rather than business-to-business sales. On 15 March 2024, the claimant was dismissed by phone without prior consultation, told her role was being closed. The respondent had no knowledge of UK redundancy law and failed to follow any process. The claimant argued she could have taken over the sales manager role or that her marketing role remained necessary.
Decision
The tribunal found the dismissal was unfair due to the complete absence of consultation, which the respondent conceded at the hearing. However, applying the Polkey principle, the tribunal concluded that had a fair 10-week consultation process been followed, the claimant would inevitably have been fairly selected for redundancy. The tribunal awarded 10 weeks' compensatory loss (£6,470) plus loss of statutory rights (£500), offset by the excess redundancy payment already made. The notice pay claim failed as payment in lieu had been made.
Practical note
Even where a genuine redundancy exists and dismissal was inevitable, employers must follow a fair consultation process; failure to do so renders the dismissal unfair, though compensation may be limited by Polkey to the period a fair process would have taken.
Award breakdown
Adjustments
The tribunal found that had a fair 10-week consultation process been followed, the claimant would inevitably have been fairly selected for redundancy. The sales role could not be offered to her as Mr Van Wyk had a proven track record and was performing well. The compensatory award was limited to 10 weeks' loss only, reflecting the time a fair process would have taken before the claimant would have been dismissed in any event.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2223315/2024
- Decision date
- 17 April 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 3
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- technology
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- UK/Europe Marketing Manager
- Service
- 3 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No