Claimant v McCarthy Tétrault LLP
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found that the respondent failed to prove redundancy was the reason for dismissal. The evidence showed the respondent continued to offer full-time employment at reduced salary until March 2023, indicating no diminished requirement for litigation work. The 2022 feedback form was positive about future work prospects. The tribunal concluded redundancy was only articulated after negotiations to vary contract terms failed, and the respondent provided no cogent explanation for what changed between offering alternative employment and withdrawing it. The respondent failed to establish a genuine redundancy situation existed.
Facts
The claimant was an Income Partner specialising in litigation and international arbitration, employed since November 2018 on £320,000 per annum with a target of 1,400 billable hours annually. From December 2022 the respondent sought to reduce his salary to £110,000 and hours to 460, citing underbilling since 2018. This offer remained available until withdrawn in April 2023. The respondent then commenced redundancy consultation, stating there was insufficient litigation work. The claimant's employment was extended to August 2023 to complete work on Ugandan litigation. The respondent refused a further extension despite improved billing projections.
Decision
The tribunal found the dismissal was unfair because the respondent failed to prove redundancy was the genuine reason. The respondent continued offering full-time employment at reduced salary until March 2023, inconsistent with a genuine redundancy. The 2022 feedback form was positive about future litigation work. The tribunal concluded redundancy was only raised after contract variation negotiations failed, and the respondent provided no evidence of what changed to make the alternative employment arrangement unviable by April 2023. The claim succeeded.
Practical note
Employers cannot rely on redundancy as the reason for dismissal where they have consistently offered continued full-time employment on varied terms, and where contemporaneous performance reviews contradict any assertion that the requirement for employees to do that type of work has diminished.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2217707/2023
- Decision date
- 5 June 2024
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 2
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- legal services
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Income Partner
- Salary band
- £100,000+
- Service
- 5 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister