The Claimant was dismissed for redundancy after a reorganisation at the Respondent firm, which included a new CEO. At the ET, the Claimant succeeded in her claim of unfair dismissal, the ET concluding that the redundancy exercise and the grievance procedure which followed were a sham. The ET proceeded to award a 25% uplift in her compensation, saying that the failures were so egregious that an uplift in compensation of 25% was required. The Respondent appealed against the amount of uplift.

The EAT dismissed the appeal. Despite the brevity of its reasoning, on a fair reading of the judgment, the ET concluded that the procedure adopted by the respondent before dismissing the claimant was a total sham. The ET did not err in awarding an ACAS uplift of 25%.

The EAT highlighted the questions which would often be helpful when considering ACAS uplift:

• Is the claim one which raises a matter to which the ACAS Code applies?

• Has there been a failure to comply with the ACAS Code in relation to that matter?

• Was the failure to comply with the ACAS Code unreasonable?

• Is it just and equitable to award an uplift because of the failure to comply with the ACAS Code and, if so, by what percentage, up to 25%?