The Claimant was made redundant but there was no consultation beforehand. The ET found there was a redundancy situation, which was the reason for dismissal. It made a clear finding that there was no consultation and “that cannot be regarded as fair in this instance”. It found that had the Respondent consulted, that would have taken a period of two weeks, after which the Claimant’s employment would have terminated. The ET went on to say that the Claimant was not entitled to a compensatory award, and purported to dismiss his unfair dismissal claim. However, the ET made not only a redundancy payment equivalent to the basic award, but also an award of two weeks’ pay to represent the consultation period it had found would have been reasonable, using the words “just and equitable” in this context. The Claimant appealed.

The EAT allowed the appeal in part. It was accepted, given the ET’s findings about the dismissal for reason of redundancy, the absence of any consultation, the dicta in Polkey, and the ET’s financial awards to the Claimant, that the ET erred in law in dismissing the Claimant’s unfair dismissal claim. A finding that the unfair dismissal claim did succeed was substituted. No further order was made.