Ms E Dahlke v Flightscope Mevo UK Ltd: 2223315/2024
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Case No 2223315/2024
Between
Ms E DahlkeClaimantFlightscope Mevo UK LtdRespondent
Before
Employment Judge EmeryIn person for claimantMs N Gyane (instructed by counsel) for respondentDate 17 April 2025
JUDGMENT
The judgment of the Tribunal is as follows: The complaint of unfair dismissal is well-founded. The claimant was unfairly dismissed. The respondent shall pay the claimant the following sums:(a) A compensatory award of £6,470(b) An award for loss of statutory rights of £500 The claim for breach of contract, a failure to pay notice pay, is not well founded and is dismissed.
REASONS
[1]Reasons were given at the hearing, and written reasons were requested.[2]The respondent says that the claimant was fairly selected for redundancy. The claimant says there was no selection procedure; her selection was a sham, and she was unfairly dismissed in fact her role was not redundant, also there was a potentially suitable role she could undertake.[3]The issues to be determined are, in summary (pages 63-4): Unfair dismissala. What was the reason or principal reason for dismissal? The respondent says the reason was redundancy.b. If the reason was redundancy, did the respondent act reasonably or unreasonably in all the circumstances, including the respondent’s size and administrative resources, in treating that as a sufficient reason to dismiss the claimant? The Tribunal’s determination whether the dismissal was fair or unfair must be in accordance with equity and the substantial merits of the case. It will usually decide, in particular, whether: i. The respondent adequately warned and consulted the claimant; ii. The respondent adopted a reasonable selection decision, including its approach to a selection pool; iii. The respondent took reasonable steps to find the claimant suitable alternative employment; iv. Dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses. NB: At the outset of the hearing, the respondent conceded that the claimant had not been adequately warned or consulted with prior to her dismissal. The respondent accepts that the claimant’s dismissal was unfair.c. If the claimant succeeds in her claim, she may be entitled to a compensatory award. If there is a compensatory award, how much should it be? The Tribunal will decide: i. What financial losses has the dismissal caused the claimant? ii. Has the claimant taken reasonable steps to replace their lost earnings, for example by looking for another job? iii. If not, for what period of loss should the claimant be compensated? iv. Is there a chance that the claimant would have been fairly dismissed anyway if a fair procedure had been followed, or for some other reason? v. If so, should the claimant’s compensation be reduced? By how much vi. If the claimant was unfairly dismissed, did they cause or contribute to dismissal by blameworthy conduct? vii. If so, would it be just and equitable to reduce the claimant’s compensatory award? By what proportion? NB: At the outset of the hearing, the respondent’s case became as follows: while it did not hold a redundancy process, the claimant would have been fairly dismissed had a fair process been followed (the ‘Polkey’ issue).1.1 What basic award is payable to the claimant, if any?1.2 Would it be just and equitable to reduce the basic award because of any conduct of the claimant before the dismissal? If so, to what extent? Notice pay claim1.3 What was the claimant’s notice period?1.4 Was the claimant paid for that notice period? Witness evidence and preliminary issues[4]I heard evidence from the claimant. For the respondent I heard evidence froma. Ms Madelein Nel, the COO of FlightScope Golf LLC, the respondent’s parent company, a South Africa based company.b. Ms Cornelia Venter, the Group Financial Managerc. Mr Michael Van Wyk, the respondent's Sales Manager for the UK and Europe.[5]Two of the witnesses gave evidence from abroad – the USA and South Africa. The respondent confirmed and I double-checked that there was no legal impediment to these witnesses giving video evidence from these jurisdictions. All witnesses’ evidence was by cvp, and all were able to give evidence and take part in the proceedings without any technical difficulties.[6]On day 1 of the hearing the claimant sought to include additional documents into the bundle; the respondent objected, on grounds that they lacked relevance. The documents were statements from employees based abroad in similar roles who had been dismissed, they give their account of the lack of any dismissal-related process which, says the claimant, shows “negligence” across all the respondent’s companies.[7]I did not accept these documents into evidence. What happened to employees in other legal jurisdictions is not relevant to the fairness or otherwise of the claimant’s dismissal in the UK. It is not a comparative exercise between legal jurisdictions but, as stated in the legal principles below, one of whether the respondent acted ‘reasonably’ as defined in UK legislation and case law.[8]On the first day of the hearing, we had a detailed discussion of the revised issues; in particular the Polkey legal principle, the respondent’s principal argument on dismissal. While the respondent has conceded the process was unfair, it argues that had a fair process been adopted, the claimant would still have been dismissed for redundancy.[9]We discussed the implications, in particular that the evidence would now be concentrated on whether there was(i) a genuine belief that the claimant’s role was redundant, and if so(ii) whether any of the issues the claimant would have raised during a consultation process, had it occurred, would have led to her not being made redundant.
The relevant facts
[10]The claimant was employed by the respondent in April 2021 as UK/Europe Marketing Manager. She was persuaded to join the respondent because of her golfing business knowledge prior record in golf-related marketing. Prior to joining she had her own portfolio of clients, and after she joined she stopped her own work to concentrate solely on the respondent’s business.[11]The claimant’s role included: work with the US marketing team to use existing marketing materials, to be updated for targeted audiences in different European markets; implement and manage marketing campaigns; evaluate marketing programmes for ROI and recommend improvements; assist with design of material for each territory; plan trade shows and events; do product demonstrations; manage social media channels; run paid campaigns (86-7)[12]Mr Van Wyk was also employed in April 2021, as UK/Europe Sales Manager. His duties included: manage sales enquiries, oversee sales and sales goals, generate leads, input into design of sales initiatives and implement them, give product demonstrations, work at events and trade shows (84-5).[13]There was significant evidence about the nature of the claimant’s role, particularly after June 2022. Ms Nel’s evidence was that June 2022 the respondent started using a US based marketing agency, JD Digital Marketing LLC (‘JD’). This company, says Ms Nel “took over” the respondent’s digital marking in the US, the UK and the EU, "and this took a large part of [the claimant’s] role, digital marketing, to the US”.[14]The claimant's case is that JD and she worked together from June 2022; that JD was not aware of UK legal provisions, that she speaks several European languages, and JD “needed assistance”. Her position is that while JD undertook a digital strategy, including paid adverts on social media, her role was “organic social media”, and to be “on the ground creating content” at events and golf clubs.[15]The claimant also accepted in evidence that her job description includes those duties mentioned at paragraph 11 above. Some of these, for example, analysis and ROI, paid campaigns, were she said “shared” with the US team – the US concentrated on digital ROI, she concentrated on events ROI.[16]Her main role was, the claimant said, “working on the ground in the UK and EU” (i.e. at trade events and tournaments). The claimant said she was “aware” that the respondent was discussing a shift towards e-commerce, her argument that this “does not change” the need for brand awareness on the ground, she “disagreed” that this meant there was less of a need for a presence at trade events.[17]The respondent’s case, as Ms Nel said in her evidence, was that the majority of social media content was now being created in the US, and the respondent was changing from business-to-business sales to ecommerce.[18]The claimant agreed that the respondent’s reference in a company decision on 5 May 2023 to “roll-out” Shopify to Europe pending JD’s input on marketing (ExCo meeting 107) meant some of her role was increasingly being undertaken from the US.[19]The claimant also accepted that the US was undertaking EU and UK digital marketing; she also accepted that the respondent’s “Social Media Strategy 2024” (136) required “consistent brand messaging” and that all digital output was now US based.[20]A significant part of the claimant’s role involved her attending golf tournaments and trade shows. The respondent had a commercial agreement with Golf England which enabled it to attend events and tournaments, set up a stall and demonstrate and sell its product. In advance, the claimant would create bespoke social media marketing to generate advance interest for the respondent’s products.[21]The papers show that the claimant’s ‘termination’ of employment was first discussed at a senior management meeting on 5 May 2023; while there are no minutes of this meeting, the subject under the respondent’s include ‘termination’. Ms Nel’s evidence was that this is the word used for dismissal in the US, where she is based. She said, and I accept, that there was a discussion at this meeting about the claimant’s role being terminated, but that no decision when this would happen was made at this time. No notes were taken of this meeting.[22]Ms Nel’s statement paragraph 23 says that there followed discussions between her and Mr Johnson in the US about strategy, when the claimant’s role was discussed. Again no minutes were taken, but I accept that the claimant was included in the discussion about the respondent’s global marketing strategy. She did not accept in her evidence that it was a “last minute decision” to make the claimant redundant even though the final decision to make the claimant redundant was made approximately one week before the claimant’s dismissal.[23]Ms Venter was unaware that the claimant was going to be dismissed until Ms Nel spoke to her on 14 March 2024, the date of the claimant’s dismissal. They discussed the UK’s statutory notice provisions. No mention was made of the claimant's contractual notice entitlement (30 days), or her redundancy entitlement, or her accrued holiday pay entitlement (145 and 149). Ms Venter’s evidence was that she became aware of the redundancy payment and notice pay requirements when she engaged with the respondent’s UK payroll provider about the claimant’s redundancy. Ms Venter’s evidence was that she was aware that marketing was to be moved to the US but was not aware of when.[24]The claimant characterises this lack of knowledge and lack of evidence of internal discussions as evidence that there was no process, that there was no plan – evidence that her redundancy was a sham.[25]Ms Nel accepted that the claimant's work was “good for brand awareness” but that the respondent was now trading on, for example, Shopify, and it was important to “centralise marketing so that the message is more consistent”. Ms Nel accepted that the claimant’s position, which she “pushed for” when employed, was that each market has its own culture, including how social media is presented and perceived; but that the respondent’s strategy changed, to move followers from differing local social media accounts in the UK/EU to one “centralised and accurate” account.[26]Ms Nel’s position was that after her redundancy, Mr Van Wyk’s took over some of the claimant’s role, in particular the aim was that he would be more involved in events and tournaments, that he could demonstrate the product as part of his role. However, one significant issue is that the partnership agreement with Golf England was not renewed, as that organisation now wanted a level of sponsorship which the respondent was not prepared to pay. This meant that the level of participation in events and tournaments, which was 10 events a year of up to 10 days each, dropped to close to zero. The claimant accepted that the only confirmed events in the calendar were the Golf England events; she had been working on other pipeline opportunities, including an event in Denmark, when she was dismissed.[27]After her messages with Ms Venter, Ms Nel called the claimant to inform her that her employment was being terminated. Ms Nel’s reasoning given to the claimant was that the respondent was centralising all marketing to the US, “and her role is closed.” Ms Nel did not say ‘redundant’ because she had not at this stage heard of this concept.[28]The claimant was sent a “notice of termination of employment” letter by email with an effective date of termination on the same date, 15 March 2024. The reason given was that the company had “decided to handle all marketing projects and campaigns from Flightscope’s HQ in Orlando Florida.” The letter said her employment was to terminate that day, but she would continue to be paid for the next month “as if you were working” and that she was required to handover her work, preferably within a week. She was told she would be given a “severance payment” equivalent to one month’s salary and receive her accrued holiday pay. The letter did not offer the right of appeal (153-4).[29]During her call with the claimant, Ms Nel offered her some consultancy work. The claimant’s case is that the consultancy would be to do the “exact same role” as she did during her employment. Ms Nel’s evidence was that the consultancy role was to “help us at events”, which was “one bullet point of [the claimant’s} JD”, that the consultancy role would not involve the rest of her role as marketing manager.[30]The claimant’s case is that she could have undertaken Mr van Wyk’s role, that she had relevant sales experience from her prior employment, that had there been a redundancy consultation process she would have been able to highlight this experience.[31]Ms Nel accepted that the claimant may have this experience, but she argued that Mr Van Wyk was an expert in the product, had been a successful Sales Manager in his three years employment. He was able to interpret and explain golfer’s data and why the product is relevant for that user. Ms Nel accepted that the claimant could operate and showcase the technology, but did not have this level of experience in the product. Ms Nel accepted that Mr Van Wyk had been trained to use and sell the product and the claimant had not; she also accepted that the claimant could have gained this technical knowledge with training.[32]Ms Nel accepted that she had not considered moving the claimant to a sales role. She accepted that the claimant would have told her about her experience in sales in a consultation process, that the claimant would have argued that she could have done Mr Van Wyk’s job, that she would have said that she looked after Mr Van Wyk’s work when he was on holiday.
The law
[33]Employment Rights Act 1996 – s.98(1) In determining for the purposes of this Part whether the dismissal of an employee is fair or unfair, it is for the employer to showa. the reason (or, if more than one, the principal reason) for the dismissal, andb. that it is either a reason falling within subsection (2) or some other substantial reason of a kind such as to justify the dismissal of an employee holding the position which the employee held.(2) A reason falls within this subsection if it a. … b. …c. is that the employee was redundant …(3) …(4) Where the employer has fulfilled the requirements of subsection (1), the determination of the question whether the dismissal is fair or unfair (having regard to the reason shown by the employer) a. depends on whether in the circumstances (including the size and administrative resources of the employer’s undertaking) the employer acted reasonably or unreasonably in treating it as a sufficient reason for dismissing the employee, and b. shall be determined in accordance with equity and the substantial merits of the case.[34]Case lawa. Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd [1987] 3 All ER 974, HL: An employer may wish to dismiss on grounds of, for example, redundancy, but they will not act reasonably unless the employer follows a fair process: “… in the case of redundancy, the employer will normally not act reasonably unless he warns and consults any employees affected, … adopts a fair basis on which to select for redundancy and takes such steps as may be reasonable to avoid or minimise redundancy by redeployment within his own organisation.”b. Spink v Express Foods Group Ltd [1990] IRLR 320 EAT: There are limited circumstances where consultation would not be necessary in a redundancy situation, for example, a sudden and immediate financial crisis.c. Williams v Compair Maxam Ltd [1982] IRLR 83 EAT: in a redundancy dismissal, the following are some of the factors which will constitute a reasonable process: i. The employer will seek to give as much warning as possible of impending redundancies to enable employees to take steps to understand the position, consider possible alternative solutions and, if necessary, find alternative employment. ii. The employer will consult to ensure the result can be achieved fairly and with as little hardship to the employees as possible. iii. The employer will seek to see whether instead of dismissing an employee he could offer him alternative employment.d. Capita Hartshead Ltd v Byard [2012] IRLR 814: A pool of one may be fair: “It is not the function of the Employment Tribunal to decide whether they would have thought it fairer to act in some other way: the question is whether the dismissal lay within the range of conduct which a reasonable employer could have adopted”. The ‘range of reasonable conduct’ test applies to the pool selection, but there is no requirement that the pool should be limited only to the employees undertaking a particular role. But it may well be unfair of the employer to adopt a pool without having “genuinely applied” its mind to who should be in that pool.e. Wrexham Golf Club v Ingham UKEAT/0190/12: Where an employer decides on a pool of one without considering whether or not other staff should be in the pool, it may be that the “underlying reality” of the situation means that this is a reasonable pool to adopt.f. Valimulla v al-Khair Foundation [2023] EAT 131: Even if the pool is one, the employer must still go through a fair procedure; the employment tribunal should not readily accept the employer’s characterisation of the post as unique; consultation is a “key element” is all cases of redundancy, even where there is a pool of one. The consultation should start at a time when it could affect the outcome, and this would usually be before deciding who should be in that pool.g. Heron v Citylink-Nottingham [1993] IRLR 372 EAT: A failure to consult the employee on a pool of one is not justified by the employer's belief that the employee was the only person who could be made redundant; there may be factors known to the employee but unknown to the employer which could cause the employer to change his mind.h. Mugford v Midland Bank [1997] IRLR 208 EAT:i. Where no consultation about redundancy has taken place, the employee the dismissal will normally be unfair, unless the tribunal finds that a reasonable employer would have concluded that consultation would be an utterly futile exercise in the particular circumstances of the case. ii. It will be a question of fact and degree for the tribunal to consider whether consultation with the individual and/or his union was so inadequate as to render the dismissal unfair. A lack of consultation in any particular respect will not automatically lead to that result. The overall picture must be viewed by the tribunal up to the date of termination to ascertain whether the employer has or has not acted reasonably in dismissing the employee on the grounds of redundancy. i. Mogane v Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2022] EAT 139: the requirement for consultation is particularly important in a case where the employer has used a 'pool of one. Not only can it not be assumed that consultation would have no effect, but also it is important that the consultation takes place at a formative stage, before the decision is taken to operate such a restricted pool.j. Safeway Stores plc v Burrell [1997] IRLR 200: The approach for determining whether or not there is a redundancy situation is:(1) was the employee dismissed? If so,(2) had the requirements of the employer's business for employees to carry out work of a particular kind ceased or diminished, or were they expected to cease or diminish? If so,(3) was the dismissal of the employee caused wholly or mainly by that state of affairs?k. Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd [1987] 3 All ER 974, HL (the ‘Polkey reduction’ point): The employer’s failure to follow a reasonable process may render a dismissal unfair. But, the compensatory award may be reduced or limited to reflect the chance that the claimant would have been dismissed in any event had a fair process been followed. The chances of the respondent dismissing the employee under a fair process must be considered.l. Software 2000 Ltd v Andrews and others UKEAT/0533/06: On the Polkey reduction, "The question is not whether the Tribunal can predict with confidence all that would have occurred; rather it is whether it can make any assessment with sufficient confidence about what is likely to have happened, using its common sense, experience and sense of justice" Closing arguments[35]Ms Gyane and the claimant made closing arguments. Their relevant arguments are set out in the conclusions section below. Conclusions on the facts and the law[36]As stated in the Issues above, the respondent has conceded that the claimant’s dismissal was unfair because of the failure to consult; the respondent says that the dismissal was genuinely on grounds of redundancy.[37]The claimant argues that her redundancy was not genuine, there was no evidence of the need to make redundancies. There was no evidence the company was performing badly, and in fact reducing the workforce from two to one was a “huge risk”; she did not know the reason why she had been selected. She argues that the respondent knew of her skill set in sales when they recruited her. Given the lack of documents and lack of knowledge of what redundancy is in the UK, and given the negligent failure to follow any process, “why should the tribunal believe the respondent’s case on redundancy?”.[38]I accept that the respondent had a genuine belief that there was a business case to reorganise its business which would entail a reduction in its workforce in the UK and elsewhere. The global business had taken a strategic decision to have all digital marketing run from the US, it had decided to concentrate on e-commerce sales rather than business to business, and it had decided to deprioritise events-based marketing and local marketing initiatives, shown by the subsequent decision not to continue its relationship with Golf England.[39]These decisions meant that a substantial part of the claimant’s role, digital marketing, had transferred to the US; some of her role was disappearing as the respondent decided it did not want local social media campaigns; some of the remainder, for example direct marketing at events and tournaments, was not a business priority in the UK. Of some relevance is that fact an employee in Japan undertaking a marketing role was dismissed at the same time as the claimant for the same reasons. The claimant’s role has not been replaced in the UK.[40]The respondent’s position is that under Polkey, the legal test is whether the claimant would have been dismissed in any event had a fair consultation process occurred; its position (per Safeways) is that the requirement to undertake her role had “diminished”.[41]Had there been a fair consultation process, the respondent accepts that the claimant may well have raised the issue of her being ‘bumped’ into Mr Van Wyk’s role and would have cited her significant sales experience; that she would also have amounted a significant defence on the merits of retaining her role.[42]The respondent viewed Mr Van Wyk is an experienced sales manager who was experienced in selling the product and was performing well in role. It is certain, says the respondent, that had there been a pool of two, Mr Van Wyk would not have been selected for redundancy, even with the claimant’s sales experience.[43]There was no suitable alternative role, says the respondent; they say that they did consider alternative roles, but the only available marketing work was attending Golf England events, which the claimant was offered.[44]On the length of a fair consultation process, the respondent says that there would have been an initial consultation meeting with, at most, one further meeting at which the claimant’s redundancy would have been confirmed.[45]The respondent argued that it would have been at most two weeks to one month for this consultation process to conclude, following which the claimant would have been dismissed.[46]The claimant’s case is that there was work for her in the UK – she dealt with sales enquiries when Mr Van Wyk was on leave, she advised on financial products (e.g. DivideBuy), she was asked to research insurance providers for public and product liability insurances. She says that there was a lot of overlap with Mr Van Wyk's role, and her experience shows that she was able to undertake this role. The very quick decision to dismiss her meant that she was unable to prepare this information. She argues that there was a good chance she would not have neem dismissed under a fair process.[47]On a percentage ‘Polkey chance’ of dismissal, the respondent says that the claimant would inevitably have been dismissed under a fair process, that there was no realistic prospect of Mr Van Wyk being fairly bumped from his role. On the length of time a fair process would have taken, at most 3 meetings within a 3 week period to fully consult, consider, take professional advice and confirm its view that the claimant’s role should be selected for redundancy, and that there was no alternative role for her to undertake.[48]The claimant argued that a fair process would have taken at least 3 months, with a likelihood of her being retained in post at the end of this process. There would have been a consultation period lasting several weeks, a redundancy selection process in which there would have been further consultation; amongst other issues she would have raised was the lack of product training given to her, meaning Mr Van Wyk would have been advantaged in this process, which she would have pointed out was unfair.[49]I concluded that there would have been a 10 week redundancy consultation process, following which the claimant would have been fairly selected for redundancy.[50]The claimant’s role was considered for redundancy from May 2023, and a final decision was taken to make her redundant in mid-March 2024. At this time, to ensure the process was fair – within the range of reasonable responses – and given its lack of knowledge, I conclude that the respondent would have taken the decision to seek legal or HR advice.[51]There was no particular business need which necessitated this as an urgent or business critical issue which required this process to be expedited. All the respondent’s SMT are based in the US and South Africa, and I conclude that it is highly likely it would have taken approximately 3 weeks to seek this assistance, to instruct a lawyer of HR professional, to discuss the rationale for redundancy, to discuss the different available options, and to give appropriate advice to Ms Nel in advance of a meeting with the claimant.[52]At the first meeting, at the start of week 4 after the decision was taken to seek advice, Ms Nel would have set out the rationale for redundancy. It is clear that at this meeting, and in more detail at a second meeting, that the claimant would have raised significant objections and challenges. Ms Nel would have sought advice. By the 2nd meeting (at the start of week 5 after the decision to seek advice) it is likely the claimant’s objections would have given rise to the possibility of legal action. At the 2nd meeting the claimant would have sought bumping, arguing her significant sales experience.[53]I find it likely that, having taken advice on the claimant’s position, that the respondent would have taken advice on adopting a redundancy selection criteria to assess the claimant for the sales role. It is likely that they would have adopted this. This process would, legally, put Mr van Wyk at potential risk of redundancy, which meant that he would have had to be consulted with. This process would have taken a further two weeks (week 7).[54]At this point the respondent would have sought advice and set about drafting a selection criteria. Again, given the respondent’s lack of knowledge of the UK process and need to take advice, this would have taken a further 2 weeks (week 9). The parties would have been consulted on the selection criteria and objections considered before finally adopting the criteria; this would have led to a selection meeting with the claimant (and Mr Van Wyk) at the start of week 10. A final meeting would have occurred at the end of week 10: it is on this date the decision on who to make redundant would have been communicated.[55]At this stage – 10 weeks after the actual date of dismissal, a fair consultation process would have inevitably had led to the claimant’s fair selection for redundancy: the focus in the UK was on sales and not marketing. Mr Van Wyk had a track record in the role, he was performing well, while the claimant could only say that she had potential in that role. The respondent would have been fairly entitled to say that her work covering for Mr Van Wyk was not the same as his track record of generating sales within the business. This criteria – a proven record making sales of specialist golfing equipment– would have meant he would not have been bumped from his role in a reasonable process.[56]The claimant accepts that she was paid 30 days’ pay in lieu of notice on receiving notice of dismissal. While it may be a breach of contract to dismiss the claimant without notice of dismissal, the respondent has provided the financial compensation to her. Accordingly this claim fails.[57]To be clear, the reason why I have concluded that it would have taken 10 weeks to conclude this process is because the respondent approached this process with a reckless attitude towards dismissal process in the UK, and it is surprising that it took until the first day of the hearing to accept it had unfairly dismissed the claimant. For the claimant this attitude was distressing because the respondent knew she had withdrawn from her own business, having been persuaded to join the respondent, and it was very apparent during the hearing that the claimant continued to feel very distressed by the off-hand way in which she was dismissed.[58]Given the respondent’s attitude, I conclude that it would have taken the respondent time to change its mindset to a fair process, and for this reason I consider it more likely than not that an adviser would have strongly recommended a more risk-adverse approach to this redundancy process. The respondent would be obtaining advice and discussing the issue internally, and this takes time. Compensation calculation[59]The claimant’s agreed net monthly salary was £3,268 per calendar month. She received pay in lieu of notice and a redundancy payment of £3,000. At the date of dismissal the weekly pay limit for a statutory redundancy payment was £643. The claimant’s statutory redundancy entitlement was agreed at £1,929. This means that she received £1,071 in excess of her statutory entitlement; this sum must be offset against her financial loss claim.[60]The calculation – financial loss: £3,268 x 12 / 52 = £754.15 per week x 10 weeks = £7,541 LESS £1,071 = £6,470.00[61]Loss of statutory rights: £500.00[62]TOTAL AWARD: £6,970.00 Approved by: