Micro Focus v Mildenhall: Clarifying collective consultation requirements

Articles  |   7 January 2026

Written by
Elliott Flockhart, Associate Solicitor

In Micro Focus v Mildenhall, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) clarified key aspects of collective consultation during redundancy situations. Mr Mildenhall, an employee of Micro Focus, claimed his dismissal was unfair due to the company’s failure to consult collectively, arguing that the company proposed 20 or more redundancies across its group companies within 90 days.

Initially, the employment tribunal found that the duty to consult applied, as the total redundancies proposed across the group exceeded the 20-employee threshold, leading to a 90-day protective award for Mr Mildenhall.

However, the EAT disagreed on the scope of "affected employees". It ruled that only redundancies proposed by the same employer should count toward the 20-employee threshold. Notably, employees from other group companies were irrelevant for this purpose.

Additionally, the EAT emphasised that the focus should be on the redundancies the employer was proposing at the relevant time, not the past or future. Whether 20 or more redundancies were “proposed” is therefore a matter of fact for the tribunal to decide, i.e., whether the employer proposed the threshold number of dismissals at some stage.

If you need assistance or advice on the contents of this article, please contact the Employment team at Thackray Williams LLP on 0208 290 0440. 
 

Related News & Insights