The claimant had been made redundant following a review of the respondent’s overseas student operation. She claimed that she was made redundant after asking for a pay rise. The ET found for the respondent that it was a genuine redundancy.

In this appeal, Bourne J rejected counsel’s argument that the ET had erred in law when it decided that there was a redundancy as defined by section 139(1)(b) of the ERA 1996, and had given sufficient reasons. However they had erred, applying Langston, by not considering the issues of whether the employer had carried out a reasonable consultation, adopted a fair basis on which to select for redundancy or taken reasonable steps to seek alternative employment for employees threatened with redundancy, even though the parties had not expressly or impliedly agreed that those issues did not arise in the case. The case was remitted to a different ET to reconsider those issues.