MoorcroftsMoorcroftsMoorcroftsMoorcrofts
Menu
  • Services
  • Team
  • Careers
  • Charity
  • Insights
    • News
    • Events
    • Podcasts
    • Case Studies
  • Contact

Thinking about making redundancies? One procedural slip could land you in an Employment Tribunal

Thinking about making redundancies? One procedural slip could land you in an Employment Tribunal

7th July 2025

Share this post

The decision in the case of Hendy Group Ltd v Kennedy [2024] EAT 106 has made it clear that where the employer fails to fulfil their duty to seek suitable alternative employment, for an employee at risk of redundancy, the entire redundancy process may be deemed unfair.   In this case, the employee was successful in their claim for unfair dismissal.

Where an employer is looking to make redundancies, they have a duty to find suitable alternative employment for the employee at risk of redundancy.

In this case, the employee worked in a car dealership as a trainer, within the dealership’s training academy, had been with the company for more than 7-years and had more than 30-years’ experience in the motor trade. In 2020, a redundancy situation arose, and the employee did not dispute that the redundancy was genuine. However, he did allege that the employer had failed to adequately consider the possibility of him continuing employment in an alternative role.

The employer had advised the employee that he could apply for the posts that they listed on their intranet, but they gave no further assistance and took no other steps to assist him in finding alternative employment with them.

When considering whether the employer had acted reasonably in satisfying their obligation to look for alternative employment for the employee, the judge considered the size and administrative resources of the employer. The judge noted that the employer was a large organisation with relatively large resources and, during the period that the employee was suitable for consideration for alternative roles, there were several vacancies at the organisation. The Tribunal found that the employer did not provide any meaningful assistance to the employee in finding alternative roles within the company, and therefore his dismissal was unfair, based on this procedural failure. The employer was ordered to pay the employee £19,566.73.

This case demonstrates that even where there is a genuine redundancy situation, it is still important for employers to comply with all procedural steps to ensure fairness and prevent the dismissal being deemed unfair. 

If you are going through a redundancy process with staff, make sure that a genuine attempt is made to find suitable alternative roles for those at risk of redundancy; and that all efforts are well documented.   Affected staff should be given adequate information about any new role, in order to make an informed decision about whether or not to take the role or start a trial period.   Do not assume that an employee will decline a role solely because it offers lower pay or status. 

If you have any questions or would like discuss a potential redundancy situation, have a chat with our Employment Team. 

Related Post

27TH JANUARY 2026

Delay in feedback doesn’t automatically mean racial...

A recent employment law case  (London Ambulance Service NHS Trust v Sodola) highlights that not all workplace delays or poor treatment amount to racial discrimination. Sodola, a black African employee of the London Ambulance Service NHS...

27TH JANUARY 2026

Paternity leave and parental leave

Under current law, an employee must have worked for their employer for 26 weeks before being eligible to qualify for paternity leave and for one year, to qualify for unpaid parental leave.  From 6 April 2026, paternity leave and...

Recent Posts

  • Delay in feedback doesn’t automatically mean racial discrimination

    27th January 2026
  • Tribunal incorrectly concluded that a Claimant’s compensation be reduced by 100%

    27th January 2026
  • Paternity leave and parental leave

    27th January 2026

Get in touch

team@moorcrofts.com
T. +44 (0) 1628 470000
F. +44 (0) 1628 470001
LinkedIn Twitter

Find us

Thames House
Mere Park
Dedmere Road
Marlow
Bucks
SL7 1PB
Moorcrofts LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in England and Wales under number OC311818. Partners: Theresa Hunter, Barry Maytum, Joe Hughes, Julia Ferguson, Kate Prentis, Lindsey Abbott, Tim Astley and William Pearce. Authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (number 419658) VAT no. GB 727298404

The term "Partner" is used to refer to a member of Moorcrofts LLP or a person of equivalent status, qualifications or senior management experience.

Privacy and cookies  | Service and price transparency  | Complaints

© 2024 Moorcrofts LLP, All Rights Reserved.

This website uses cookies to personalise your experience. For more information on how this site uses cookies please view our Privacy policy