Extreme Rope Access Ltd

Case Summary

The claimant, a level 3 IRATA trained rope access technician employed for approximately 4 years, was dismissed on grounds of redundancy when the respondent's business downsized due to the proprietor's wife's ill health. The tribunal found the claimant was an employee entitled to statutory protections, the dismissal was unfair due to lack of redundancy procedure, but that there was a 100% likelihood he would have been dismissed had a fair process been followed. The claimant's claims for unfair dismissal and breach of contract (notice pay) succeeded; claims for unlawful wage deduction (holiday pay) and loss of statutory rights were dismissed.

The tribunal found the dismissal was unfair because no redundancy procedure was followed by the respondent, which failed to conduct consultations, apply selection criteria, offer alternative employment, or provide an appeals process. However, applying Polkey principles, the tribunal determined there was a 100% likelihood the claimant would have been dismissed anyway due to the genuine business downsizing necessitated by the proprietor's need to care for his wife during her health crisis, which made it impossible to continue operating at the previous scale.

Use these claim-type pages to compare this decision with other published tribunal cases, outcome patterns, and visible award data.

• •Employee status determination
• •Reason for dismissal (redundancy vs. avoidance of liability)
• •Fairness of redundancy procedure
• •Likelihood of dismissal had fair procedure been followed (Polkey reduction)
• •Holiday pay deduction claim
• •Notice pay entitlement
• •Loss of statutory rights claim
• •Failure to provide written employment particulars

1 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Mr Florin Draghici Respondent: Extreme Rope Access Limited Heard at: Watford On: 18-19 March 2026 Before: Employment Judge MJ Smith REPRESENTATION: Claimant: Mr Albert Kurtyan (lay representative) Respondent: Ms Emma White (litigation consultant) RESERVED JUDGMENT 1. The claimant was an employee and worker of the respondent at the relevant time. The claim of unfair dismissal will therefore proceed. 2. The claimant’s claim for unfair dismissal is well founded. 3. The complaint in respect of holiday pay is not well-founded and is dismissed. The respondent did not make an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages by failing to pay the claimant for holidays accrued but not taken on the date the claimant’s employment ended. 4. The claimant’s claim for breach of contract in relation to notice pay is well-founded. 5. The claimant’s claim for loss of statutory rights is not well-founded and is dismissed. 2 6. When the proceedings were begun the respondent was in breach of its duty to provide the claimant with a written statement of employment particulars. REASONS Introduction 1. This is a claim for unfair dismissal within the meaning of section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 arising from the claimant being dismissed on the basis of redundancy. The claimant alleged that the respondent’s real reason for his dismissal was due to wanting to terminate the claimant’s employment and avoid liability for any sums owing. The claimant also brings claims for unauthorised deduction of wages relating to holiday pay, notice pay, loss of statutory rights and failure to provide written particulars of employment. These arise out of the termination of the claimant’s employment. 2. The respondent is a contractor which provides abseiling and high-altitude trained workers to clients. 3. The claimant worked for the respondent, as a level 3 …