The EAT case of Aylward caused some confusion as it seemed to suggest that for a dismissal to be by reason of redundancy there had to be a reduction in headcount.  The EAT in the case of Mr R Packman v Ms Fauchon addressed this issue and (to relief all round) has confirmed that Aylward is not good law.  In this case it was argued that where an employee was dismissed in consequence of a downturn of business and the introduction of a new accounting system there was no redundancy dismissal.  The line of argument was that advanced in Aylward –  because there was no reduction in headcount, only a need for Ms Packman to reduce her hours, then there was no dismissal.

The EAT have now confirmed that Aylward is inconsistant with previous COA decisions. There can be a redundancy dismissal even where there is no reduction in headcount.

Well, at least that’s all been cleared up ………………….