The Claimant was told by the Respondent that his post was at risk of redundancy, and he then received confirmation that his role was to be deleted. He was offered a trial period in another role, commencing on 3 July 2017; at the end of the trial, there was disagreement as to whether this was suitable alternative employment (which would have meant that the Claimant was not entitled to a redundancy payment). Other roles were offered, but none was suitable, and the Claimant's employment was terminated in December 2017. At a preliminary hearing, the ET determined that the trial period was not a statutory trial period for the purposes of Part XI of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and that the Claimant had been dismissed, but not until December 2017. The Respondent appealed.

The EAT held that the ET did not err in law in concluding that the Claimant was not dismissed on or before 3 July 2017, and that the trial of the alternative role that began on that date was not a statutory trial period; and it did not err in finding that the Claimant was dismissed in December 2017. Accordingly, the matter would be remitted to the ET to address the remaining issues that needed to be resolved in order to determine whether the Claimant was entitled to a statutory redundancy payment.