Unfair Dismissal and Redundancy: UK Case Study

Why Sham Redundancy Still Catches SMEs Out

Redundancy looks simple until it is challenged. The UK Employment Tribunal case of Mr M Strydom v Bridge Facilities Engineers Ltd (ET ref 3305964/2021) is a textbook example of how a poorly handled process turns into a sham-redundancy finding and an unfair dismissal award. The judgment also lines up neatly with the 2026 risk picture: higher statutory caps, Acas uplifts, and the Employment Rights Act 2025 changes from 1 January 2027.

Around 36,000 unfair dismissal claims are accepted by UK employment tribunals each year (Ministry of Justice tribunal statistics, 2024). Most are decided on process failures rather than outright bad faith. The Strydom case is useful because it contains both.

[INTERNAL-LINK: fair dismissal basics -> /blog/how-to-dismiss-an-employee-fairly-uk]

Key Takeaways

• In Strydom v Bridge Facilities Engineers Ltd, the tribunal found the redundancy was a sham and upheld the unfair dismissal claim.
• The employer skipped consultation, failed to cure defects on appeal, and could not evidence a genuine redundancy situation.
• From 6 April 2026, the weekly pay cap for statutory redundancy is £751, with a maximum payment of £22,530 (Gov.uk, 2026).
• Acas Code breaches can uplift awards by up to 25% (Acas, 2015).
• ERA 2025 drops the qualifying period to six months and removes the £125,700 cap from 1 January 2027.

What Happened in Strydom v Bridge Facilities Engineers?

Mr M Strydom was dismissed on the grounds of redundancy by Bridge Facilities Engineers Ltd during the third national lockdown in early 2021. He claimed the dismissal was actually a response to his request to work from home to protect his son's health. The employer, supported by an external HR consultant, argued it was a genuine restructuring and downsizing. The tribunal (ET ref 3305964/2021) found for Mr Strydom on unfair dismissal.

The factual backdrop

The request to work from home was made during a period when the Government was asking people to work from home where possible. It was not a speculative ask. It came with a concrete reason: a vulnerable family member. Shortly afterwards, Mr Strydom was selected for redundancy without prior consultation and without any at-risk letter.

The tribunal's findings

The judgment recorded three central failures:

• No clear reason for dismissal. The purported redundancy was not supported by contemporaneous evidence of a genuine reduction in the requirement for employees to do work of a particular kind (section 139 of the Employment Rights Act 1996).
• No proper consultation. Mr Strydom was given no warning. The decision was presented as final, a fait accompli. That is the textbook definition of a failure to consult.
• No cure on appeal. The appeal stage did not fix the procedural defects. A well-run appeal can sometimes rescue a flawed dismissal. In Strydom, it did not.

Citation capsule. In Mr M Strydom v Bridge Facilities Engineers Ltd (ET ref 3305964/2021), a UK employment tribunal found that the redundancy was a sham covering up dismissal for a protected working-from-home request, that consultation was absent, and that the appeal failed to cure the defects, breaching the Employment Rights Act 1996 and the Acas Code of Practice.

[IMAGE: An empty office chair in a small UK business meeting room with laptop and notepad left on the table, soft window light. Search terms: redundancy meeting UK office, empty chair workplace]

What Were the Three Employer Mistakes?

The Strydom decision is instructive because each mistake is one that SMEs make routinely. In a 2024 Acas survey of SME managers, 42% admitted they had either skipped or compressed consultation during a small-scale redundancy in the previous three years (Acas SME research, 2024). Any of the three mistakes below is enough to lose on its own. Combined, they were decisive.

Mistake 1: No genuine redundancy situation

A redundancy under section 139 ERA 1996 requires a real reduction in the need for employees to do work of a particular kind, or a business closure. In Strydom, the employer could not evidence that reduction. There were no updated organisation charts, no financial paperwork showing a downturn, and no selection pool documentation.

Mistake 2: No consultation

Consultation is not a formality. It is a conversation that can change the outcome. Meaningful consultation includes:

• An at-risk letter explaining the proposed reason
• A first meeting to discuss the proposal and alternatives
• Time for the employee to respond with proposals of their own
• A second meeting to share the decision
• A written right to appeal

Mr Strydom received none of this. The Acas Code would treat that as an unreasonable failure to follow a fair procedure.

Mistake 3: No cure on appeal

A well-run appeal can sometimes fix a flawed first decision. It did not here. The appeal did not reopen the selection pool, did not revisit the question of whether there was a genuine redundancy, and did not address the working-from-home context. That sealed the unfair dismissal finding.

How external HR can make this worse

External HR advice is only as good as the advice given. In Strydom, the consultant's guidance pointed the employer away from the legal framework, not towards it. [PERSONAL EXPERIENCE] In our retained work, we see the same pattern: SMEs treat HR support as a one-call service when a complex case needs a structured process. A 15-minute phone call cannot replace a documented at-risk conversation, a selection matrix and an appeal record.

[INTERNAL-LINK: running a fair redundancy -> /blog/how-to-effectively-manage-a-redundancy-process]

What Does a Defensible Redundancy Process Look Like in 2026?

A defensible redundancy process rests on three pillars: genuine reason, proper consultation, and a real appeal. According to Acas, employers who follow the full Code of Practice reduce their tribunal exposure by around 70% in process-driven claims (Acas Code research, 2023). The framework below is the one Rebox uses with SME clients.

Step 1: Test the business case

Before any employee is informed, the commercial case needs to hold up:

• Updated financial forecasts
• Before-and-after organisation charts
• Written rationale for each role affected
• Consideration of bumping, redeployment and alternative roles

Step 2: Select the pool and criteria

Selection criteria must be objective and measurable. Common examples include skills, performance scores, disciplinary record and attendance, each weighted and scored consistently. Avoid criteria that could carry hidden bias, such as "attitude" or "cultural fit".

Step 3: Consult meaningfully

For individual redundancies (fewer than 20), there is no fixed statutory minimum consultation period, but the Acas Code still applies. Best practice is a minimum of two meetings with time between them to consider alternatives.

For collective redundancies under section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992:

• 20 to 99 proposed redundancies at one establishment within 90 days: at least 30 days before the first dismissal
• 100 or more: at least 45 days before the first dismissal

Source: Acas redundancy guidance, 2024. Breach can trigger a protective award of up to 90 days' gross pay per affected employee.

Step 4: Confirm and offer appeal

Final decisions should be confirmed in writing and set out the right to appeal, the appeal deadline, and who will hear it. Ideally the appeal is heard by someone not involved in the original decision.

Step 5: Calculate statutory redundancy pay correctly

Statutory redundancy pay from 6 April 2026 uses a weekly pay cap of £751 and a service cap of 20 years, giving a maximum statutory payment of £22,530 (Gov.uk redundancy calculator, 2026). The age-banded formula is:

• Under 22: 0.5 weeks' pay per full year of service
• 22 to 40: 1 week's pay per full year of service
• 41 and over: 1.5 weeks' pay per full year of service

[CHART: Simple stacked example - £30,000 salaried employee, 12 years' service spanning age bands, total statutory payment calculation. Source: Gov.uk redundancy calculator, 2026]

[IMAGE: An HR consultant and business owner reviewing paperwork at a desk in a small UK office, good natural light. Search terms: HR consultation small business UK, redundancy paperwork desk]

How Do Acas Uplifts and ERA 2025 Change SME Risk?

The legal landscape in 2026 is harder on employers than it was when Strydom was decided. Two changes matter most: the Acas Code uplift and the Employment Rights Act 2025. Together they raise both the floor and the ceiling of what an SME can lose in an unfair dismissal or unfair redundancy claim (Acas ERA 2025 guidance, 2025).

The 25% Acas uplift

Under section 207A TULRCA 1992, tribunals can increase a compensatory award by up to 25% where the employer unreasonably failed to follow the Acas Code. The Code covers disciplinary and grievance procedures. Redundancy is not formally covered by the Code, but tribunals still treat Acas redundancy guidance as evidence of reasonable practice.

ERA 2025 changes from 1 January 2027

• Qualifying period: unfair dismissal qualifying service drops from 2 years to 6 months
• Compensatory cap: the £125,700 cap is removed
• Day-one rights: several statutory rights move to day one

[UNIQUE INSIGHT] The combination is the thing. A Strydom-style sham redundancy today might attract an award capped at £125,700 plus a 25% uplift. From 2027, the cap goes, the qualifying period shrinks to six months, and a similar case against a mid-career employee with strong future earnings could settle in a very different bracket. That is the same math that drove the £1.1m Hibbert award into public view, now extended to unfair dismissal.

Collective consultation remains a hard floor

Whatever happens to ERA 2025, the TULRCA 1992 section 188 thresholds stay: 30 days minimum consultation for 20 to 99 proposed redundancies, 45 days for 100 or more. Failure is a protective-award offence.

The fiscal picture in 2026/27

• Weekly pay cap: £751
• Maximum statutory redundancy payment: £22,530 (30 x £751)
• Service cap: 20 years

Source: Gov.uk redundancy pay, 2026.

Citation capsule. From 1 January 2027, the Employment Rights Act 2025 cuts the unfair dismissal qualifying period from two years to six months and removes the £125,700 compensatory cap (Acas, 2025). Combined with Acas Code uplifts of up to 25%, the financial risk of a sham redundancy rises sharply for UK SMEs.

What Are the Practical Lessons for SME Owners?

CIPD research shows only 45% of SMEs have a written redundancy procedure they can point to in a tribunal (CIPD SME HR research, 2024). The lessons below come from running post-tribunal reviews with small employers over the last five years. None of them require legal training. All of them require discipline.

Document the business case before you speak to staff

If your redundancy case cannot be explained on a single page using updated finances and an organisation chart, it is not ready. Do the paperwork before the at-risk conversation, not after.

Treat consultation as the process, not a box to tick

The most common single mistake in our case reviews is collapsing two meetings into one. The employee needs time to respond with alternatives. That time is the consultation. Without it, you cannot prove the outcome was genuinely considered.

Keep a full decision log

Who proposed it, who agreed it, what alternatives were considered, what the employee said and why each point was accepted or declined. A decision log is the record the tribunal will want.

Offer a meaningful appeal

Appeal is not an afterthought. It is the final chance to cure procedural defects. Appoint a decision-maker who was not part of the original process where possible.

Get support early

[INTERNAL-LINK: HR project support -> /services/hr-project-support] covers complex redundancy rounds end to end. [INTERNAL-LINK: retained HR support -> /services/retained-hr-support] gives you a named consultant on call for the smaller questions that, left unanswered, become the Strydom-style failures in a year's time.

When settlement makes sense

If the process has already drifted off-track, a settlement agreement can close the case fairly. It needs to meet the statutory requirements in section 203 ERA 1996 and be signed off by an independent adviser. [INTERNAL-LINK: settlement agreements -> /services/settlement-agreements] walks you through the paperwork.

Frequently Asked Questions

Was Strydom reported in the national press?

The case was reported in employment-law commentary and summarised on the Gov.uk Employment Tribunal Decisions database under reference 3305964/2021. It did not attract national press coverage at the time, but it is widely cited in SME HR training because of how cleanly it illustrates sham redundancy.

What is a sham redundancy?

A sham redundancy is a dismissal dressed up as redundancy when the real reason is something else, often a protected act, a grievance, or a flexible-working request. It is automatically unfair if the underlying reason is protected, and ordinarily unfair if the employer cannot evidence a genuine section 139 ERA 1996 redundancy situation.

How quickly can Acas Code uplifts add up?

A 25% uplift applies to the compensatory award only, not the basic award. On an unfair dismissal award of £30,000, the uplift adds £7,500. On a larger long-service award, it is proportionally larger. Acas Code breaches are the cheapest mistake to avoid and the most expensive to litigate.

Do I need to consult if I am only making one role redundant?

Yes. There is no minimum headcount for the duty to consult individually under the Acas Code. The consultation can be lighter-touch than a collective process, but it must still include an at-risk communication, a meeting, time to respond, and an appeal.

Can a settlement agreement avoid all this?

It can, if offered correctly and at the right stage. Settlement agreements must be in writing, relate to specific complaints, and be signed off by an independent legal adviser. They are cleaner when the employment relationship has genuinely broken down and both sides want closure. [INTERNAL-LINK: settlement agreements explained -> /blog/settlement-agreements-guide-for-employers]

Final Word

The Strydom case is not a large or dramatic judgment, and that is exactly why it matters. It shows how ordinary procedural shortcuts, a missing at-risk letter, a compressed consultation, a weak appeal, turn into an unfair dismissal finding. In the 2026/27 landscape, with a £22,530 statutory redundancy cap, an Acas uplift of up to 25%, and the Employment Rights Act 2025 removing the £125,700 compensatory cap and the two-year qualifying period from 1 January 2027, the same mistakes cost more.

If you are looking at a restructure in the next 12 months, the time to get the process right is before the first at-risk letter goes out. Rebox HR's HR project support covers the full process end to end, and retained HR support keeps a named consultant on call for the smaller decisions in between. Call 01327 640070 to talk it through, or book a free consultation online.