The claimant was on maternity leave when a redundancy exercise took place in which 21 team leader posts were reduced to 16. The claimant was made redundant and started these proceedings arguing the scoring had been incorrect. The ET found the 16 remaining roles amounted to suitable alternative vacancies. They also held that the redundancy exercise had been one involving a reduction of the total number of individuals holding the same roles, not one where there was an amalgamation of roles resulting in any newly created position(s).

HHJ Barklem quashed the finding of automatic unfair dismissal. The finding of “ordinary” unfair dismissal was also quashed. The Tribunal had variously substituted its own findings in relation to another candidate, and failed to explain how the flaws which it identified would have altered the claimant’s ranking and selection for redundancy. The case was remitted to a fresh Tribunal for rehearing.