Two former Axiom Ince solicitors have lost their claims for protective awards after a judge ruled they worked in the smaller Manchester office.
Employment Judge Ross concluded that both Manisha Mistry and Sarah Bytheway were part of a team of less than 20 people and so were not subject to rules on redundancy consultations.
Both solicitors had been awarded four-figure redundancy payments by the employment tribunal after the collapse of the firm last year. But they tried to argue for collective awards on the basis their work was not solely limited to the Manchester office. The claims were initially rejected but the judge granted each the chance to have their case reconsidered and evidence presented in person.
Mistry had worked for Plexus Law in Manchester since 2017 and was transferred to Axiom Ince following an acquisition in July 2023. All employees were notified at the start of October that the SRA had closed down the firm and they were made redundant with immediate effect.
The judge accepted Mistry’s evidence that she supervised some team members in the Leeds office and regularly travelled to Leeds and London offices. She reported to Jeff Turton, the national head of fraud, who a separate tribunal has found was entitled to a protective award as he was assigned to the head office in Leeds.
The judge acknowledged that Mistry assisted Turton in some of his duties and travelled regularly to other offices, but she split her working week between remote working and three days in the Manchester office. By the time she was made redundant she was the only partner in the Manchester office and was never appointed to national head of fraud even when Turton left in August 2023.
The judge said the ‘establishment’ to which Mistry was assigned was Manchester and therefore that the decision not to grant a protective award was correct.
The outcome was the same for Bytheway, whose application for reconsideration of her case had also been granted.
She had also worked for Plexus Law and accepted that she normally worked out of the Manchester office, but said there was close communication with Leeds and London and cases were referred from other parts of the UK.
‘Although the claimant had a mobility clause in her contract, that is not sufficient to suggest she was not assigned to the Manchester office, added the judge. ‘I accept her evidence that she sometimes worked from home, but again that is not sufficient to suggest she was not assigned to the Manchester office.’
