Appeal Redundancy: UK Law & Employer Guide (2026)

Redundancy appeals are often where legal risk crystallises. While redundancy is a potentially fair reason for dismissal under the Employment Rights Act 1996, a dismissal can still be unfair if the process is flawed. The appeal stage is frequently the final opportunity to correct procedural defects before a dispute escalates into an employment tribunal claim.

An employee who has been selected for redundancy may feel that the decision was unjust, that the selection criteria were applied incorrectly, or that the redundancy was not genuine. In some cases, they may allege sham redundancy or discrimination. How an employer responds at appeal stage can materially affect the outcome of any later unfair dismissal claim.

What this article is about
This guide explains the legal framework governing redundancy appeals in the UK. It examines whether employees have a right to appeal redundancy, what makes a redundancy unfair, how sham redundancy arguments arise, the correct structure of an appeal process, and how appeals interact with unfair dismissal compensation and tribunal risk. The focus throughout is on helping employers manage redundancy appeals lawfully, consistently and defensibly, with guidance aligned to wider employment law compliance and best practice.

Section A: Can You Appeal Redundancy?

Redundancy appeals are not automatically required by statute. However, they are closely linked to the overall fairness assessment that tribunals apply when considering unfair dismissal claims. Employers who misunderstand the legal position risk either over-stating employee rights or underestimating the impact an appeal can have on tribunal outcomes.

1. Is there a legal right to appeal a redundancy dismissal?

There is no general statutory provision in the Employment Rights Act 1996 that gives employees an automatic right to appeal a redundancy dismissal.

That said, three important qualifications apply.

First, an appeal may be a contractual right. If the employment contract, staff handbook or redundancy policy provides for an appeal, the employer must honour it. Failure to do so can render the dismissal procedurally unfair and may also amount to breach of contract.

Second, certain sectors may have statutory or regulatory frameworks that create specific procedural rights, including appeal rights. Where such rights exist, they must be followed strictly.

Third, even where no express right exists, tribunals assess fairness under section 98(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. In doing so, they consider whether the employer acted reasonably in all the circumstances. The availability of an appeal is one of the factors that can be taken into account when assessing overall fairness.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal in Gwynedd Council v Barratt confirmed that the absence of an appeal does not automatically make a redundancy dismissal unfair. However, it may still be relevant when evaluating whether the employer’s conduct fell within the band of reasonable responses.

The legal position is therefore nuanced: an appeal is not universally mandatory, but its absence can carry risk, particularly where it would have been reasonable to offer an appeal in the circumstances.

2. When can refusing an appeal make a redundancy unfair?

Refusing an appeal is most legally dangerous in two scenarios.

The first is where an appeal is contractually promised. If an employer denies an employee the opportunity to exercise an express appeal right, a tribunal is likely to regard the dismissal as procedurally unfair. The failure is not merely technical; it removes a safeguard designed to correct errors.

The second is where the original redundancy process contains arguable procedural weaknesses. If, for example, there were scoring discrepancies, unclear selection pools, or concerns about consultation, denying an appeal may reinforce the impression that the employer did not act reasonably.

Tribunals apply the “band of reasonable responses” test under section 98(4). Even if the redundancy situation itself was genuine, the dismissal can still be unfair if the procedure adopted was outside the range of reasonable responses open to a reasonable employer. An appeal can demonstrate openness to review and correction. Its absence can suggest rigidity.

Importantly, an appeal is not a cure-all. If the original process was fundamentally flawed, the existence of an appeal will not necessarily rescue the dismissal. However, a properly conducted appeal can correct mistakes and strengthen the employer’s defence, particularly where the business has followed a structured redundancy process and can evidence reasoned decision-making.

3. What does ACAS expect employers to do?

ACAS guidance recommends that employers offer employees the opportunity to appeal redundancy decisions, particularly where the employee believes they have been unfairly selected.

ACAS guidance does not have the force of statute in the redundancy context in the same way that the ACAS Code of Practice applies to disciplinary and grievance procedures. However, tribunals may take ACAS guidance into account when assessing reasonableness.

From a risk management perspective, offering an appeal is widely regarded as best practice. It allows factual errors in scoring or pooling to be identified and corrected, provides an opportunity to revisit suitable alternative employment options, demonstrates procedural fairness and may reduce the likelihood of tribunal proceedings relating to unfair dismissal.

An employer who declines to offer an appeal should be confident that the underlying redundancy process was robust, well-documented and procedurally fair.

Section Summary
There is no automatic statutory right to appeal a redundancy dismissal. However, an appeal may be required contractually and can be a significant factor in the tribunal’s assessment of overall fairness under section 98(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. As a matter of risk management and good practice, employers are generally well advised to offer and properly conduct a redundancy appeal, especially where issues may otherwise be pursued through internal procedures such as a grievance procedure or external litigation.

Section B: What Makes a Redundancy Unfair?

An appeal against redundancy almost always centres on alleged unfairness. While redundancy is a potentially fair reason for dismissal under section 98(2)(c) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, fairness does not depend solely on the existence of a business rationale. It depends equally on how the employer implements the process.

Tribunals assess unfair redundancy claims by examining both substance and procedure. A genuine redundancy situation is not enough. The employer must also demonstrate that it acted reasonably in all the circumstances, including in its selection, consultation and consideration of alternatives.

1. What is a genuine redundancy situation?

Under section 139 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, a redundancy arises where the dismissal is wholly or mainly attributable to the closure of the business, the closure of the employee’s workplace, or a reduced requirement for employees to carry out work of a particular kind.

The key issue is whether there has been a genuine reduction in the employer’s need for employees to do work of a particular kind. The test is practical and factual. Tribunals will look beyond labels and examine what has actually changed within the business.

A redundancy may still be genuine even if the business continues trading and even if some duties continue to be performed. What matters is whether there has been a genuine diminution in the requirement for employees to carry out that work. Employers should be able to evidence the underlying reasons for redundancy and, where relevant, explain whether the exercise is a compulsory redundancy programme or includes voluntary options.

However, where the employee’s role continues substantially unchanged, or where another individual is recruited into the same or very similar role, questions may arise as to whether the redundancy was genuine. These issues often form the foundation of sham redundancy allegations, addressed in Section C.

2. Unfair selection criteria and scoring errors

Even where a redundancy situation is genuine, the selection process must be fair.

Tribunals expect employers to adopt objective and transparent selection criteria wherever possible. Common criteria include skills, qualifications, performance, disciplinary record and attendance. However, criteria must be applied consistently and supported by evidence. Employers should ensure their approach to redundancy selection criteria is clear, measurable and capable of being explained to employees during consultation and at appeal stage.

Red flags that frequently arise in successful unfair redundancy claims include unexplained reliance on subjective assessments, inconsistent scoring between managers, lack of documentary evidence to justify scores, failure to explain scoring outcomes to employees, and criteria that have a disproportionate impact on employees with protected characteristics.

An employer does not need a perfect scoring matrix. However, it must be able to explain how the criteria were chosen, how they were applied and why the employee was selected. In practice, appeals often test whether the employer’s redundancy matrix was applied consistently and whether the scoring can be justified by contemporaneous evidence.

Appeals frequently focus less on the existence of a redundancy situation and more on the fairness and consistency of the selection exercise.

3. Failure to consult properly

Consultation is central to redundancy fairness.

In individual redundancy situations, there is no prescribed statutory minimum consultation period. However, employers must engage in meaningful consultation before a final decision is made. Consultation must take place while proposals are still at a formative stage and before final decisions are made, so that the employee has a genuine opportunity to influence the outcome. This will typically include explaining the business rationale, discussing the proposed selection pool, explaining selection criteria, giving the employee an opportunity to challenge provisional scores and considering alternatives to dismissal.

Employers should ensure their approach reflects good practice on redundancy consultation, including a clear record of what was discussed and how employee feedback was considered. Where only one employee is affected, employers should still ensure the process is structured and defensible, including appropriate time for representations, in line with practical guidance on redundancy consultation periods for one person.

In collective redundancy situations, where 20 or more redundancies are proposed at one establishment within a 90-day period, statutory collective consultation obligations arise. Minimum consultation periods and notification requirements apply, and failure to comply can lead to a protective award of up to 90 days’ gross pay per affected employee, in addition to unfair dismissal risk.

Redundancy appeals often revisit consultation concerns. If issues raised during consultation were dismissed without proper consideration, the appeal stage may be the final opportunity to correct that defect.

4. Failure to consider suitable alternative employment

Before dismissing an employee for redundancy, an employer is expected to consider whether suitable alternative employment is available.

This obligation is not passive. Employers should actively review vacancies within the organisation and, where appropriate, across associated entities. The suitability of alternative roles is assessed objectively, while the reasonableness of the employee’s refusal is assessed subjectively.

Tribunals scrutinise whether vacancies were identified and communicated, whether the employee was given sufficient information, whether trial periods were considered and whether redeployment opportunities were explored properly. Depending on the restructure, employers may also need to consider options such as redundancy bumping where this would be a reasonable alternative to dismissal in the circumstances.

Failure to consider alternative employment is a recurring feature in unfair redundancy cases that succeed. At appeal stage, employees may argue that roles were overlooked, that they were not informed of opportunities or that redeployment options were dismissed too quickly. A thorough appeal can address these concerns and reduce exposure.

Section Summary
A redundancy dismissal may be unfair even where a genuine redundancy situation exists. Tribunals assess fairness by examining selection criteria, consultation, consideration of alternatives and overall reasonableness under section 98(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. Most successful unfair redundancy claims arise from procedural defects rather than from the absence of a genuine business rationale.

Section C: Sham Redundancy

Allegations of sham redundancy frequently arise in appeals and tribunal claims. The term is not defined in statute, but it is commonly used to describe a situation where redundancy is presented as the reason for dismissal when, in reality, the underlying reason is different.

For employers, sham redundancy allegations carry significant risk. If a tribunal concludes that the redundancy was not genuine within the meaning of section 139 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, the dismissal will not only be procedurally unfair but substantively unfair.

1. What is sham redundancy?

A sham redundancy arises where the stated redundancy reason does not reflect the true reason for dismissal.

Under section 139 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, redundancy must be attributable to a business closure, workplace closure or a reduced requirement for employees to carry out work of a particular kind. If that reduction does not genuinely exist, the redundancy justification falls away.

Common scenarios giving rise to sham redundancy arguments include:

• The employee’s role continues largely unchanged
• Another individual is recruited into the same or a substantially similar role
• Duties are redistributed without any real reduction in workforce requirement
• The redundancy coincides with interpersonal conflict or performance concerns

Even where duties are redistributed among existing employees, a redundancy may still be genuine if the overall requirement for employees to perform that work has diminished. Tribunals examine the totality of the evidence rather than focusing solely on whether some duties remain.

A business restructure can still be a genuine redundancy even if roles are reorganised or merged. The question is not whether the business changes shape, but whether there is a genuine reduction in the need for employees to perform that work. Employers should therefore ensure they can evidence the commercial and operational rationale underpinning the exercise, supported by a defensible genuine redundancy reason.

2. Tribunal indicators of sham redundancy

When assessing whether a redundancy was genuine, tribunals often look at objective indicators, including:

• Whether job adverts were published for similar roles shortly before or after dismissal
• Whether agency or temporary staff were engaged to perform substantially the same duties
• Whether the employee’s duties were assumed in full by a replacement hire
• Whether documentary evidence supports the claimed business rationale

Employers are not prohibited from recruiting after a redundancy exercise. However, if recruitment undermines the claimed reduction in requirement, it may weaken the redundancy defence.

In some cases, the issue is not deliberate misrepresentation but poor documentation. If there is no clear evidence of the business rationale, financial pressures or structural changes, a tribunal may infer that redundancy was used as a convenient label.

Redundancy appeals are often the first formal stage at which sham redundancy concerns are articulated in writing. The employer’s response should therefore be evidence-based, measured and supported by documentation from the wider redundancy process.

3. How employers should investigate sham redundancy allegations at appeal stage

When an employee raises sham redundancy in an appeal, the employer should treat the allegation seriously. A defensive or dismissive response can strengthen the employee’s position in any subsequent unfair dismissal proceedings.

Best practice at appeal stage includes:

• Reviewing the original business case for redundancy
• Examining organisational charts before and after the restructure
• Reviewing recruitment activity in the relevant period
• Considering whether duties were redistributed or replaced
• Documenting the reasoning clearly in the appeal outcome letter

If the appeal reveals that the role has effectively continued unchanged, the employer may need to reconsider the dismissal decision. Withdrawing notice, reinstating the employee or offering alternative employment may reduce exposure to tribunal claims and compensation.

Conversely, where the redundancy is genuine, the appeal outcome should explain clearly how the reduced requirement test under section 139 is satisfied. Clear articulation of the business rationale strengthens the employer’s position in any subsequent employment tribunal proceedings.

Section Summary
Sham redundancy allegations focus on whether there was a genuine reduction in the need for employees to perform work of a particular kind. Tribunals examine substance rather than labels. At appeal stage, employers should revisit and document the underlying business rationale carefully, as this may be decisive in defending any later unfair dismissal claim.

Section D: Grounds to Appeal Redundancy

Most redundancy appeals do not dispute that a business change has occurred. Instead, they focus on whether the employer applied the process fairly to the individual employee. Understanding the typical grounds of appeal allows employers to prepare properly and to identify where genuine errors may need to be corrected.

Appeals frequently expose weaknesses in documentation, selection methodology or consultation practice. Where those weaknesses are identified and addressed at appeal stage, tribunal exposure can be significantly reduced.

1. Common grounds for a redundancy appeal

While each case turns on its facts, several recurring themes appear in successful redundancy appeals and unfair dismissal claims.

Unfair selection from the pool
Employees may argue that the selection pool was defined too narrowly or too widely. For example, limiting the pool to one individual where other employees perform similar work can be challenged. Tribunals will examine whether the pool was within the range of reasonable responses and whether the employer’s approach was consistent with a fair redundancy process.

Errors in scoring or application of criteria
Discrepancies between managers’ scores, lack of evidence supporting performance ratings or failure to take account of recent improvements are common appeal points. Minor scoring differences can materially alter outcomes. Employers should ensure that their selection criteria for redundancy are applied consistently and supported by evidence.

Inconsistent application of criteria
Where similarly situated employees were treated differently, or where criteria were applied unevenly, the appeal may focus on consistency. Employers should be able to demonstrate that the same standards were applied across the pool and recorded accurately within the redundancy matrix.

Failure to consult meaningfully
Employees may contend that consultation meetings were superficial, that provisional scores were not shared or that their representations were not genuinely considered before a final decision was made. Employers should be able to evidence compliance with redundancy consultation requirements.

Failure to consider alternative employment
Appeals often highlight vacancies that were allegedly overlooked. If the employee can point to suitable roles that were not discussed, this may weaken the employer’s position. Employers should document the steps taken to identify and offer suitable alternative roles, including consideration of options such as bumping in redundancy where appropriate.

Discrimination concerns
Where selection criteria disproportionately affect individuals with protected characteristics, redundancy appeals may raise indirect discrimination arguments. This significantly increases legal risk because discrimination claims do not require two years’ service and compensation is uncapped.

An effective appeal process allows these concerns to be examined and, where appropriate, corrected before they escalate.

2. Evidence employees rely on in successful appeals

Appeals that lead to tribunal claims are often built around documentary gaps. Employers should anticipate scrutiny of:

• Scoring matrices and the rationale for each score
• Notes from consultation meetings
• Communications about selection criteria
• Vacancy lists and redeployment efforts
• Business case documents supporting the restructure

Where documentation is sparse, inconsistent or contradictory, the appeal stage is an opportunity to consolidate and clarify the evidential position.

Employers should avoid treating appeals as a rubber-stamping exercise. A properly documented review, including reconsideration of scoring where appropriate, demonstrates procedural fairness and may strengthen the defence of any subsequent unfair dismissal claim.

3. Grounds that rarely succeed

Not every appeal ground carries equal weight.

Disagreement with the employer’s commercial strategy, absent procedural defects, is unlikely to succeed. Tribunals do not substitute their own view of how a business should be run. The question is whether the employer’s decision fell within the band of reasonable responses.

Similarly, dissatisfaction with the outcome alone does not establish unfairness. The focus remains on process and reasonableness.

That said, even apparently weak grounds should be considered carefully. A failure to engage properly with appeal points can create procedural vulnerability, even where the substantive redundancy decision was sound.

Section Summary
Redundancy appeals most commonly focus on selection errors, consultation defects, failure to consider alternatives and discrimination concerns. Appeals that succeed often do so because of evidential gaps rather than because the redundancy situation itself was invalid. A structured and genuinely reconsidered appeal can correct errors and strengthen the employer’s defence against unfair dismissal claims.

Section E: Redundancy Appeal Procedure

A redundancy appeal should not be treated as a formality. It is a structured review of the dismissal decision and may be the final opportunity to correct procedural defects before litigation risk increases.

Although there is no prescribed statutory format for a redundancy appeal, tribunals expect employers to act reasonably and consistently. The process should reflect transparency, independence and genuine reconsideration.

1. Step-by-step redundancy appeal process

While processes vary depending on the size of the organisation and the number of redundancies involved, a defensible redundancy appeal procedure typically includes the following stages.

Submission of written appeal
The employee should be invited to set out their grounds of appeal in writing within a reasonable timeframe. The timeframe should be clearly communicated in the redundancy outcome letter or policy.

The appeal should identify the specific issues being challenged, such as scoring, consultation, pool selection or alternative employment.

Acknowledgement and preparation
The employer should acknowledge receipt promptly and confirm the next steps. Relevant documentation should be collated, including scoring sheets, consultation notes and vacancy records.

Where necessary, managers involved in the original decision may be asked to clarify or expand on their rationale.

Appeal hearing
A formal meeting should be arranged to allow the employee to present their case. The hearing should focus on the specific grounds raised.

Although the statutory right to be accompanied under the Employment Relations Act 1999 applies to disciplinary and grievance hearings, many employers permit accompaniment at redundancy appeals as a matter of best practice or policy. Employers should check their contractual and policy framework.

Written outcome
After the hearing, the employer should provide a written decision explaining whether the appeal is upheld, rejected or partially upheld. The letter should address each ground raised and explain the reasoning clearly.

A well-reasoned outcome letter can be critical evidence in any subsequent tribunal proceedings.

2. Who should hear the appeal?

Independence is an important feature of a fair appeal process.

Where possible, the appeal should be heard by a manager who was not directly involved in the original redundancy decision and who is senior to, or independent from, the original decision-maker.

In smaller organisations, complete separation may not be feasible. In such cases, the employer should ensure that the appeal is conducted impartially and that the decision-maker approaches the review with an open mind.

In complex or high-risk redundancy programmes, some employers seek external HR or legal input at appeal stage, particularly where there is potential exposure to an unfair dismissal claim or discrimination allegation.

3. Reasonable timelines

There is no statutory deadline for lodging or determining a redundancy appeal. However, timelines must be reasonable in the circumstances.

Employers commonly allow between five and fourteen days for submission of an appeal. The hearing should be scheduled without undue delay, taking into account availability and the need to gather documentation.

Importantly, an internal appeal does not pause the time limit for bringing an unfair dismissal claim. Employees generally have three months less one day from the effective date of termination to begin ACAS Early Conciliation. The limitation period is paused during ACAS Early Conciliation, but not by the existence of an internal appeal. Employers should ensure appeal timelines do not inadvertently create confusion around legal deadlines.

4. Documentation and record-keeping

Appeal documentation is often scrutinised closely in tribunal proceedings.

Employers should retain:

• The written appeal
• Notes or minutes of the appeal hearing
• Any revised scoring matrices
• Evidence of reconsideration of alternative roles
• The final outcome letter

The appeal outcome letter should demonstrate that the employer has actively reconsidered the decision, rather than merely endorsing the original reasoning.

If errors are identified, they should be corrected transparently. Attempting to defend an indefensible position at appeal stage can increase both litigation risk and potential compensation exposure, including risk of proceedings before an employment tribunal.

Section Summary
A fair redundancy appeal process involves a written submission, an impartial hearing, proper documentation and a reasoned written outcome. Although not universally mandated by statute, a properly conducted appeal can correct procedural errors and materially reduce unfair dismissal risk. The appeal must be genuine, independent and clearly documented.

Section F: What Happens After a Redundancy Appeal?

The outcome of a redundancy appeal can significantly affect legal risk, employee relations and financial exposure. An appeal does not merely confirm or reject the original decision. It may lead to reinstatement, redeployment or a re-run of part of the process.

Employers should approach the outcome stage carefully and ensure that any decision is clearly reasoned and communicated in writing.

1. Appeal rejected: confirming the dismissal

If the employer concludes that the redundancy was genuine and the process fair, the appeal may be rejected.

In these circumstances, the outcome letter should:

• Address each ground of appeal individually
• Confirm that the redundancy situation remains valid
• Explain why the selection process was fair
• Confirm that notice and redundancy pay arrangements remain unchanged

The letter should avoid dismissive language. Even where the appeal is rejected, it should demonstrate that the issues were reconsidered properly.

A well-reasoned appeal rejection can strengthen the employer’s position in any subsequent unfair dismissal proceedings by evidencing procedural fairness and reasonableness.

2. Appeal upheld: reinstatement or withdrawal of notice

If the appeal identifies substantive errors, the employer may decide to uphold it.

Where scoring errors materially affected the outcome, the employer may withdraw the redundancy notice and reinstate the employee. If dismissal has already taken effect, reinstatement should preserve continuity of service.

In some cases, the employer may determine that the redundancy was not genuine or that consultation was fundamentally flawed. Withdrawing dismissal at appeal stage can significantly reduce litigation exposure.

Employers should confirm clearly:

• Whether notice is withdrawn
• Whether back pay will be provided
• How continuity of service is treated
• Any next steps in the restructuring process

Clarity is essential to avoid further dispute, particularly where the redundancy formed part of a wider redundancy exercise.

3. Partial success: re-scoring or fresh consultation

An appeal may identify limited procedural defects without undermining the entire redundancy exercise.

For example, the employer may decide to:

• Re-score the selection matrix
• Expand or reconsider the selection pool
• Offer additional consultation meetings
• Review redeployment options

In such cases, the employer should document the corrective steps and ensure consistency across the pool. Re-running part of the process must be handled carefully to avoid creating new inconsistencies or discrimination risk.

Partial success at appeal stage can demonstrate responsiveness and reasonableness, which may be influential if a tribunal later assesses fairness under section 98(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996.

4. Compensation or settlement discussions

Although internal appeals do not typically result in formal “compensation awards” in the same way as tribunals, employers may choose to resolve disputes commercially.

In some situations, employers consider:

• Offering an enhanced redundancy package
• Entering into discussions about a settlement agreement
• Agreeing exit arrangements on a without prejudice basis

Protected conversations under section 111A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 apply only to ordinary unfair dismissal claims and do not protect discussions relating to discrimination. Employers should therefore approach settlement discussions carefully, particularly where discrimination allegations have been raised.

The appeal stage can therefore act as both a corrective mechanism and a strategic decision point for resolving risk.

Section Summary
A redundancy appeal may result in confirmation of dismissal, reinstatement, re-scoring or renewed consultation. Each outcome carries legal implications. Employers should provide a clear, reasoned written decision and, where errors are identified, correct them transparently. A properly handled appeal can materially reduce unfair dismissal and sham redundancy risk.

Section G: Unfair Dismissal Redundancy Cases Won in the UK

Employees who challenge redundancy decisions at tribunal often frame their claim as unfair dismissal. While redundancy is a potentially fair reason for dismissal under the Employment Rights Act 1996, employees can and do succeed where the employer’s process falls short.

Ordinary unfair dismissal claims generally require two years’ continuous service. However, this qualifying period does not apply to discrimination claims or certain automatically unfair dismissals. Employers should therefore assess risk carefully where redundancy appeals raise issues beyond procedural fairness.

Understanding why unfair redundancy claims are won helps employers assess the strategic value of a properly conducted appeal.

1. Why employees win unfair redundancy claims

Tribunals rarely substitute their own view of how a business should restructure. Instead, successful claims usually arise from procedural failures.

Common factors in cases where employees succeed include:

• Incorrect or irrational selection pools
• Inadequate or token consultation
• Unexplained or inconsistent scoring
• Failure to consider suitable alternative employment
• Findings that the redundancy was not genuine

Where employers cannot justify their approach to the selection pool, or fail to evidence compliance with a fair redundancy process, tribunals may find the dismissal unfair even if there was commercial pressure to restructure.

In many cases, these issues are first raised during the redundancy appeal. Employers who correct procedural defects at that stage often strengthen their litigation position.

2. The role of the Polkey principle

Even where a redundancy dismissal is found procedurally unfair, compensation may be reduced under what is commonly known as the Polkey principle.

If the tribunal concludes that the employee would have been dismissed in any event, even if a fair procedure had been followed, it may reduce the compensatory award to reflect that likelihood. A Polkey reduction affects compensation, not liability.

Employers should not rely on Polkey reductions as a safety net. Procedural fairness remains critical. Tribunals examine the seriousness of the procedural defect and the probability that a fair process would have led to the same outcome.

A robust appeal process can mitigate procedural weaknesses and reduce the risk of a full unfair dismissal finding.

3. Time limits and ACAS Early Conciliation

Employees wishing to bring an unfair dismissal claim must generally begin ACAS Early Conciliation within three months less one day of the effective date of termination.

The limitation period is paused during ACAS Early Conciliation, but it is not extended simply because an internal appeal is ongoing. Employers should ensure that appeal correspondence does not imply otherwise.

Where an employee pursues tribunal proceedings following an unsuccessful appeal, the tribunal will consider the redundancy process as a whole, including the conduct and reasoning of the appeal stage. For this reason, the appeal outcome letter is often central to the tribunal’s assessment of fairness in any employment tribunal case.

Section Summary
Employees typically win unfair redundancy claims because of procedural defects rather than because redundancy is an invalid reason in principle. Selection pool errors, inadequate consultation and failure to consider alternatives are common themes. A properly conducted appeal can correct defects and materially influence tribunal outcomes, although it does not eliminate risk or extend statutory time limits.

Section H: Unfair Dismissal Compensation in Redundancy Cases

When a redundancy dismissal is found to be unfair, the financial consequences can be significant. Employers should understand how compensation is calculated and how the appeal stage can influence exposure.

Unfair dismissal compensation in redundancy cases generally consists of two elements: the basic award and the compensatory award. In some cases, reinstatement or re-engagement may also be ordered, although this is less common in practice.

1. The basic award

The basic award is calculated using a statutory formula based on the employee’s age, length of continuous service and weekly pay, subject to a statutory cap. The calculation mirrors the statutory redundancy pay formula.

If the employee has already received a statutory redundancy payment, that amount is usually offset against the basic award to prevent double recovery.

The statutory caps on weekly pay and maximum years of service are updated periodically. Employers should check the applicable limits at the time of any claim.

2. The compensatory award

The compensatory award is intended to reflect the employee’s actual financial loss resulting from the unfair dismissal, subject to a statutory maximum.

It may include:

• Loss of earnings
• Loss of benefits
• Loss of statutory rights
• Loss of pension contributions

The compensatory award is capped at the lower of a statutory maximum or one year’s gross pay in ordinary unfair dismissal cases. Employees have a duty to mitigate their losses. Tribunals will consider whether the employee took reasonable steps to find alternative employment. Failure to mitigate can reduce compensation.

Where redundancy is mishandled and leads to a successful unfair dismissal claim, compensation exposure can therefore depend heavily on the employee’s post-dismissal employment history.

3. The impact of procedural fairness and Polkey reductions

Where dismissal is found procedurally unfair but the tribunal concludes that the employee would likely have been dismissed even if a fair process had been followed, compensation may be reduced under the Polkey principle.

As noted earlier, a Polkey reduction affects the level of compensation, not the finding of unfair dismissal itself.

Serious procedural defects, including failure to offer a reasonable opportunity to appeal where appropriate, may limit the tribunal’s willingness to apply a significant reduction.

Employers should therefore view the appeal stage as part of their overall compensation risk management strategy.

4. Discrimination and uncapped compensation risk

If a redundancy appeal raises discrimination concerns and a tribunal later upholds a discrimination claim, compensation is not subject to the same statutory cap that applies to ordinary unfair dismissal.

Compensation in discrimination cases may include:

• Financial loss
• Injury to feelings awards
• Aggravated damages in serious cases

Because discrimination claims do not require two years’ service and are uncapped, employers should treat any discrimination-related grounds raised during a redundancy appeal with particular care. Early identification and correction of discriminatory impact within the selection process can materially reduce exposure.

Section Summary
Unfair dismissal compensation in redundancy cases consists of a basic award and a compensatory award, subject to statutory limits in most ordinary cases. Procedural fairness, including the conduct of any redundancy appeal, directly affects compensation risk. Discrimination claims significantly increase exposure due to uncapped awards.

Section I: Employer Best Practice and Risk Management

Redundancy appeals should be approached as a risk control mechanism rather than an administrative afterthought. The appeal stage can either consolidate a defensible process or expose structural weaknesses that increase tribunal exposure.

Employers who treat appeals as a genuine review opportunity are better placed to defend unfair redundancy and sham redundancy allegations.

1. Run appeals consistently across the redundancy programme

Consistency is critical, particularly in collective or multi-role redundancy exercises.

Employers should ensure that:

• All affected employees are informed clearly of any appeal opportunity
• The same submission deadlines apply across the pool
• Appeal hearings are conducted using a consistent framework
• Decision-making standards are uniform

Inconsistent treatment between employees can create both unfair dismissal and discrimination risk.

Where multiple appeals are lodged, employers should monitor outcomes carefully. If one appeal exposes systemic scoring errors, it may be necessary to revisit decisions across the pool rather than treat cases in isolation.

2. Document every stage of reconsideration

Appeal documentation often becomes central evidence in tribunal proceedings.

Employers should ensure that the appeal outcome letter demonstrates:

• Active reconsideration of the grounds raised
• Engagement with documentary evidence
• A reasoned explanation of any revised conclusions
• Clear articulation of why the dismissal remains within the band of reasonable responses, where applicable

Where corrective action is taken, such as re-scoring or offering alternative employment, the rationale should be clearly recorded.

A well-documented appeal strengthens the employer’s credibility before a tribunal and may be decisive in any subsequent employment tribunal proceedings.

3. Identify high-risk indicators early

Certain factors increase litigation risk and should trigger heightened scrutiny at appeal stage.

• Allegations of sham redundancy
• Evidence of potential discrimination
• Disputes over the selection pool
• Inconsistent scoring or lack of documentation
• Failure to consider redeployment opportunities

Where such indicators are present, employers may wish to seek specialist employment law advice before issuing the appeal outcome.

4. Consider settlement strategy where appropriate

In some cases, the appeal stage may highlight litigation risk that cannot be fully mitigated.

Employers may consider whether a commercial resolution is appropriate, such as:

• An enhanced redundancy package
• A redundancy settlement agreement
• Agreed exit arrangements with clarity around notice and payment in lieu of notice

Any settlement discussions should be handled carefully and lawfully, typically on a without prejudice basis or under statutory protected conversation provisions where applicable. Employers should remember that protected conversations do not shield discussions relating to discrimination.

Section Summary
Redundancy appeals are a critical part of managing unfair dismissal and discrimination risk. Consistency, documentation and genuine reconsideration are central to a defensible process. Employers who identify and correct weaknesses at appeal stage significantly reduce litigation exposure and compensation risk.

Section J: FAQs

1. Can you appeal redundancy in the UK?

There is no automatic statutory right to appeal a redundancy dismissal. However, an appeal may be provided contractually or as part of an employer’s redundancy policy. Even where no express right exists, offering an appeal is considered good practice and may be relevant to a tribunal’s assessment of fairness under section 98(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996.

2. How do you win a redundancy appeal?

From an employee perspective, successful appeals usually focus on procedural defects such as incorrect selection scoring, an unreasonable selection pool, inadequate consultation or failure to consider suitable alternative employment. For employers, “winning” an appeal means ensuring that the original decision is defensible, properly documented and demonstrably reasonable.

3. What is unfair redundancy?

A redundancy dismissal may be unfair if there was no genuine redundancy situation, if the selection process was flawed, if consultation was inadequate or if the employer failed to consider suitable alternative employment. Even where redundancy is a potentially fair reason for dismissal, the process must fall within the band of reasonable responses.

4. What is sham redundancy?

Sham redundancy refers to a situation where redundancy is used as a pretext for dismissal when there is no genuine reduction in the need for employees to perform the work in question. If a tribunal finds that the redundancy was not genuine within the meaning of section 139 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, the dismissal will be substantively unfair.

5. Do you need two years’ service to challenge redundancy?

Ordinary unfair dismissal claims generally require two years’ continuous service. However, this requirement does not apply to discrimination claims or certain automatically unfair dismissals. Employees may also have contractual claims irrespective of length of service.

6. Does an appeal stop the time limit for tribunal claims?

No. An internal redundancy appeal does not extend the time limit for bringing a claim. Employees generally have three months less one day from the effective date of termination to begin ACAS Early Conciliation. The limitation period is paused during Early Conciliation, but not simply because an appeal is ongoing.

7. Can compensation be reduced even if the dismissal was unfair?

Yes. Under the Polkey principle, a tribunal may reduce the compensatory award if it concludes that the employee would have been dismissed even if a fair procedure had been followed. This affects compensation, not the finding of unfair dismissal itself.

Section Summary
Redundancy appeals are not automatically required by statute but are highly relevant to fairness assessments. Employees may challenge unfair or sham redundancy decisions, and employers should ensure appeals are handled independently, consistently and with clear written reasoning.

Section K: Conclusion

Redundancy appeals occupy a critical position within the wider framework of UK employment law. Although there is no automatic statutory right to appeal a redundancy dismissal, the availability and quality of an appeal process can materially influence whether a dismissal is ultimately regarded as fair.

Tribunals do not assess redundancy cases solely by asking whether the business faced commercial pressure. They examine whether the employer acted reasonably in defining the selection pool, applying objective criteria, consulting meaningfully and considering suitable alternative employment. The appeal stage is often the final opportunity to correct weaknesses in those areas.

Most successful unfair redundancy claims arise from procedural defects rather than from the absence of a genuine redundancy situation. Sham redundancy allegations, inconsistent scoring and failures in consultation frequently feature in cases where employees succeed. A structured and genuinely reconsidered appeal can address these issues before they escalate into tribunal proceedings.

From a risk management perspective, employers should treat redundancy appeals as a safeguard rather than a formality. Independence, consistency, documentary evidence and clear written reasoning are essential. Where high-risk indicators arise, including discrimination allegations or systemic scoring errors, early specialist advice may be appropriate.

Handled properly, a redundancy appeal strengthens procedural fairness, reduces exposure to unfair dismissal compensation and demonstrates organisational integrity. Mishandled, it can compound risk and increase both financial and reputational consequences.

Section L: Glossary

Section M: Additional Resources