ADP RPO UK Ltd (Respondent) v Haycocks (Appellant)

Case summary

Case ID

UKSC/2025/0029

Parties

Appellant(s)

Joseph Haycocks

Respondent(s)

ADP RPO UK Ltd.

Issue

Whether a redundancy process can be considered fair when an employer assesses and scores the employee(s) in question before the consultation process begins.

Facts

The Respondent runs a recruitment process outsourcing business. The Appellant was employed by the Respondent from 16 October 2017. As a result of a diminution in vacancies resulting from the Covid-19 pandemic, the Respondent decided in May 2020 that it would have to make redundancies in the team in which the Appellant worked. On 10 or 11 June 2020, the Appellant’s team manager, Miss Hancock, assessed the employees in question in accordance with a “redundancy selection criteria matrix” and the Appellant came out with the lowest overall score. The Appellant was informed at a meeting on 30 June 2020 that he was at risk of redundancy and that a consultation process would follow. Following the consultation process, the Appellant was made redundant on 14 July 2020. It is important to note for the purposes of this appeal that the Appellant was not told during the consultation process that the scoring exercise had been carried out before the consultation started and he was not sent his scores until after his dismissal. The Appellant exercised his right of internal appeal, and his appeal was dismissed. On 16 October 2020, the Appellant commenced proceedings against the Respondent in the Employment Tribunal (“the ET”) for unfair dismissal. During these proceedings, it was revealed that the scoring process had taken place prior to consultation. The ET dismissed the claim, finding that the redundancy process had been fair. The Appellant appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (“the EAT”). The EAT allowed the appeal, finding that there had been an absence of proper consultation and that the Appellant had been unfairly dismissed. The Respondent appealed the EAT’s decision to the Court of Appeal (“the CA”), which allowed the appeal. The CA did not find any error of law in the ET’s conclusion that, viewed overall, the Respondent had conducted a fair redundancy process and the Appellant’s dismissal was not unfair. The Appellant now appeals to the UK Supreme Court.

Date of issue

14 February 2025

Case origin

PTA

Back to top