How We Helped a Senior Employee in the IT Sector Secure a Stronger Settlement Agreement After a Disputed Redundancy

When an employee is told that their role is at risk of redundancy, it is not always clear whether the process is genuinely fair or whether redundancy is being used as a way to bring the employment relationship to an end on other grounds. In this case, we helped a senior employee in the IT sector challenge the employer’s position, improve the terms on offer, and secure a stronger settlement agreement without the cost and stress of Employment Tribunal proceedings.

Experiencing a situation similar to this?
Get in touch with Settlement Agreement Advice today.

The Client’s Background and Employment Situation

A client came to us after losing his job with an IT services business where he had worked for several years in a senior sales and account management role. As an Account Manager, he had also been given wider sales leadership responsibilities across the group, including business development and account management functions. By the time he asked for our help, the employment relationship had deteriorated significantly.

Our client had been given increased responsibilities and, while he had raised concerns about capacity and support, he had been criticised for performance in circumstances where staffing changes had left him carrying a heavy workload. Our file note also recorded that the situation had caused him stress and anxiety, and that he had family caring responsibilities which made the pressure particularly difficult.

Navigate This Case Study:

The Key Employment Issue

How We Helped

Renegotiating The Settlement Agreement Terms

Why This Mattered in Practice

Conclusion

The Key Employment Issue: A Disputed Redundancy Process

The immediate issue was redundancy, but the documents showed that the client believed the process had not been genuine. The employer put his role at risk as part of a cost-cutting exercise within the sales and administration side of the business, saying the process was based on workload absorption, skills and capability, and performance. It then concluded the consultation quickly and confirmed that his role was redundant, with notice, holiday pay and statutory redundancy to follow.

The client’s concern, however, was that the redundancy process had been used to remove him unfairly. He complained that scoring had taken place before he was told he was at risk, that he had not been allowed to see the assessment, that younger and newer employees had effectively been favoured, and that there had been no real right of appeal. In his own appeal letter, he said there had been no genuine consultation, that the outcome was pre-determined, and that performance appeared to be the real reason behind the dismissal rather than a genuine redundancy situation.

How We Helped

We reviewed the redundancy paperwork, the contract, the client’s chronology and the employer’s communications. We then advised him on the concerns arising from the process, including the lack of transparent consultation, the absence of a proper appeal, the employer’s stated reliance on performance-related issues, and the client’s belief that he had been treated less favourably than younger colleagues. We also discussed strategy with him, including the option of negotiating a settlement rather than moving straight into Employment Tribunal proceedings.

We then set out the client’s position robustly to the employer. In correspondence, we alleged that the consultation had been a sham, that the dismissal was unfair, and that there were discrimination concerns. We made clear that, if the matter did not settle, the client intended to proceed with a Tribunal claim. At the same time, we put forward a practical proposal for resolving matters by way of a settlement agreement, including compensation, protection for future employment, an agreed reference and a contribution to legal fees.

Renegotiating The Settlement Agreement Terms

That approach achieved movement. The employer’s first offer was only about £6,000 compensation, together with a limited reduction to the non-compete restriction, a standard factual reference and £2,000 plus VAT towards legal fees. After further negotiation on the client’s behalf, we increased the compensation figure to about £12,000, doubling the original offer. We also improved the non-financial terms, including securing a full waiver of the non-compete restriction and a reduction in the non-dealing restriction to 9 months less the period already spent on garden leave, together with an agreed reference and the same £2,000 plus VAT contribution to legal fees.

The Outcome Achieved For The Client

The final signed settlement agreement therefore delivered a materially better outcome than the employer’s initial proposal. Under the agreement, the client received £12,000 compensation for loss of employment, in addition to the statutory redundancy payment he had already been paid of about £3,950. The employer also agreed to pay up to £2,000 plus VAT towards his legal fees. Separately, the termination payments already due to him included notice pay, salary and accrued holiday pay, bringing those payments to about £10,600.

Why This Mattered in Practice

This mattered in practical terms. Although the client had managed to obtain new employment quickly, the correspondence showed that he still faced a continuing reduction in earnings and benefits, so achieving an improved exit package remained important. The settlement gave him additional compensation, certainty, an agreed reference for future job applications, and better protection from restrictive covenants that might otherwise have affected his next role. It also enabled him to avoid the further cost, risk and stress of contested Tribunal litigation.

Conclusion

In this matter, our role was not limited to checking a settlement agreement after the event. We assessed the background, identified the weaknesses in the redundancy process, advanced the client’s position firmly, and used the prospect of litigation to improve both the financial package and the post-termination terms. The result was a stronger and more workable settlement agreement that allowed the client to move on with greater certainty and better protection than he had originally been offered.

For employees facing a similar situation, this case shows the value of taking advice before accepting an employer’s first offer. A settlement agreement may appear final, but careful legal advice and focused negotiation can make a significant difference to the compensation paid and the terms on which employment comes to an end.

Benjamin Wells

Ben’s extensive background in providing settlement agreement advice affords him a strategic advantage during negotiations. Because Ben understands exactly how claims are litigated, he can provide a detailed analysis of the terms to ensure his clients receive a fair and comprehensive settlement package.

Having worked across diverse industries, Ben is dedicated to prioritising his clients’ interests and delivering optimal results. He is highly regarded for his pragmatic negotiation style and reassuring advice, combined with a detailed analysis of every provision to ensure his clients’ positions are fully protected throughout the settlement journey.

LinkedIn: Benjamin Wells

Email: bwells@settlementagreements.co.uk

Ben is also a member of:
Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA)
The Law Society
Employment Lawyers Association (ELA)