The Claimant, who was a chef, was dismissed for redundancy after the restaurant he was working at faced a downturn during the pandemic. The ET held that the Claimant had been unfairly dismissed but concluded that if a fair procedure had been applied by the Respondent, there was a 100% chance that he would have been fairly dismissed at the same time as it was not objectively unreasonable to determine that the Claimant was in a pool of one. The Claimant's compensatory award was reduced to zero and the Claimant appealed.

The EAT allowed the appeal. The reasoning of the ET involved a non-sequitur because the possibility of a pool of one being fairly chosen does not mean that the dismissal was bound to have taken place when it did. On a proper application of the law the ET needed to consider what this particular employer would have done had it acted fairly. The ET’s reasoning failed to take into account the general requirement for some warning and consultation, even in the case of a small employer, and even where a pool of selection of one might be determined upon.