This article applies to England and Wales.
Evidence in redundancy judgments
In brief: Redundancy judgments describe the contract and the pay paperwork and little else. In substantial judgments from England and Wales, 2023–25, the contract of employment is mentioned in 68%, payslips in 19% and witness statements in 62%, the lowest of any claim type. Disciplinary evidence is almost absent and WhatsApp, at 9%, is the lowest of any claim type.
Last updated: September 2026
By Yerty | Analysis of published Employment Tribunal decisions, 2017 to 2025. Part of the evidence by claim type series.
Redundancy is the quietest column in the analysis. The disciplinary file that fills unfair dismissal judgments is absent, the medical file that fills disability judgments is absent, and messages have barely arrived.
This piece takes the redundancy column of Yerty's evidence by claim type analysis and reads it on its own: 110 judgments in 2017–19 and 103 in 2023–25. It is the smallest column reported in the series, and figures of a few percent move with a handful of cases.
Summary
- The contract and the pay paperwork. Contract of employment 68%, payslips 19% (up from 15%), rota 8%, P45 8% (down from 15%).
- No disciplinary file. Written warnings 4% (down from 11%), final written warnings 3%, disciplinary policies 1%, investigation reports 3%.
- No medical file. Occupational health 7%, fit notes 4%, impact statements 1%.
- Fewest messages. WhatsApp 9% (up from 3%), screenshots 0%, text messages 5%.
- Witness statements 62%, the lowest rate of any claim type, though up from 52%.
Evidence in redundancy judgments
Share of judgments that mention each type of evidence at least once. The final column is every judgment in the population, for comparison. 110 judgments in 2017–19 and 103 in 2023–25.
Evidence mentioned in redundancy judgments (n = 103 in 2023–25; redundancy-specific documents are not measured) · share of judgments, ■ 2017–19 (n 110) → ■ 2023–25 (n 103) · ○ all cases 2023–25
Sorted by change. Rows under 3% in both periods are omitted; the full figures are in the table below. A mention is not reliance.
| Evidence | Redundancy 2017–19 | Redundancy 2023–25 | All cases 2023–25 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Witness evidence | |||
| Witness statement | 52% | 62% | 67% |
| Employer documents | |||
| Contract of employment | 65% | 68% | 50% |
| Written warning | 11% | 4% | 13% |
| Final written warning | 10% | 3% | 10% |
| Dismissal letter | 9% | 9% | 11% |
| Job description | 17% | 12% | 11% |
| Disciplinary policy | 4% | 1% | 11% |
| Investigation report | 2% | 3% | 10% |
| Resignation letter | 5% | 7% | 7% |
| Appeal letter | 3% | 2% | 6% |
| Employee handbook | 4% | 4% | 4% |
| Grievance letter | 2% | 5% | 4% |
| Personnel file | 2% | 0% | 2% |
| Pay and time paperwork | |||
| Payslips | 15% | 19% | 11% |
| Rota | 5% | 8% | 10% |
| P45 | 15% | 8% | 5% |
| Timesheets | 3% | 5% | 5% |
| Bank statements | 4% | 6% | 3% |
| Medical evidence | |||
| Occupational health | 7% | 7% | 17% |
| Fit note | 3% | 4% | 9% |
| Medical records | 1% | 2% | 4% |
| Impact statement | 0% | 1% | 4% |
| Medical report | 1% | 1% | 2% |
| Notes made at the time | |||
| Diary | 4% | 8% | 5% |
| Minutes of the meeting | 5% | 1% | 4% |
| Contemporaneous notes | 1% | 3% | 2% |
| Incident report | 2% | 1% | 2% |
| File note | 0% | 0% | 1% |
| Messages and images | |||
| 3% | 9% | 16% | |
| Text messages | 3% | 5% | 7% |
| Social media | 2% | 4% | 5% |
| Photographs | 2% | 4% | 5% |
| Screenshots | 0% | 0% | 3% |
| Microsoft Teams | 0% | 1% | 2% |
| Voicemail | 2% | 0% | 2% |
| Phone records | 1% | 1% | 1% |
n: Redundancy 110 / 103; all cases 2,029 / 1,738. A judgment is counted under every claim type among its claims.
What a redundancy judgment describes
A dismissal for redundancy is a potentially fair reason under section 98(2)(c) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and the fairness question is about the process: whether there was a genuine redundancy situation within section 139, how the pool was drawn, how selection was scored, whether there was consultation and whether alternatives were considered. The documents that go to those questions do not have single names in the term bank (selection matrices, scoring, consultation minutes and at-risk letters are not among the thirty-six phrases measured), so the table understates the paperwork in these cases. What it does show is which of the common document types are present.
The contract of employment is mentioned in 68% of redundancy judgments, close to the money claims. Payslips are at 19%, up from 15%, and the P45 fell from 15% to 8%. Job descriptions are at 12%, which fits a claim type where the pool and the role matter.
What is absent
The disciplinary file is not there. Written warnings fell from 11% to 4%, final written warnings from 10% to 3%, and the disciplinary policy from 4% to 1%. Investigation reports are at 3%. Redundancy is a no-fault dismissal, and the judgments read accordingly.
The medical file is not there either: occupational health 7%, fit notes 4%, medical records 2%, impact statements 1%. Where a redundancy claim runs with a disability claim the medical evidence appears in the disability column, not here.
Messages have barely arrived. WhatsApp is mentioned in 9% of redundancy judgments, the lowest rate of any claim type, up from 3%. Screenshots are at 0%, text messages at 5%. Redundancy consultation is a documented, formal process, and the evidence of it is letters and minutes rather than a group chat.
Witness evidence
Witness statements are mentioned in 62% of redundancy judgments, the lowest of any claim type against 67% in the population, though up from 52%. A redundancy case is more often decided on the documented process than on contested accounts of what was said. The diary is the one contemporaneous note that rose, from 4% to 8%, on a column where that is four judgments.
Method and limits
Population and matching are those of the hub analysis: single-claimant merits decisions with written reasons, England and Wales, one judgment per case, 20,000 to 60,000 characters. Each figure is the share of judgments containing the exact phrase at least once. A judgment is counted under a claim type if that claim type is among its claims, so a judgment can appear in several claim-type columns and the columns do not sum to the population. A mention is not reliance: a judgment that rejected a document or noted its absence counts the same as one that accepted it. No category totals are given.
Frequently asked questions
What evidence appears most often in redundancy judgments?
In substantial judgments from 2023–25: the contract of employment (68%), witness statements (62%), payslips (19%), job descriptions (12%), dismissal letters (9%), WhatsApp (9%) and rotas (8%). Figures are England and Wales, single-claimant, one judgment per case, and count judgments that mention the evidence at least once.
Why is disciplinary evidence so rare in redundancy cases?
Because redundancy is a no-fault dismissal. Written warnings are mentioned in 4% of substantial redundancy judgments in 2023–25, final written warnings in 3%, disciplinary policies in 1% and investigation reports in 3%, against 13%, 10%, 11% and 10% in the population.
Does the analysis cover selection matrices and consultation letters?
Not as named rows. Selection matrices, scoring, at-risk letters and consultation minutes are not among the thirty-six phrases measured, so the table understates the process paperwork specific to redundancy. It shows which of the common document types appear, not the full redundancy file.
How often is WhatsApp mentioned in redundancy cases?
In 9% of substantial redundancy judgments from 2023–25, the lowest rate of any claim type, up from 3% in 2017–19. Screenshots are at 0% and text messages at 5%. Redundancy consultation is a formal, documented process, and its evidence is letters and minutes.
Are witness statements less common in redundancy cases?
Yes. Witness statements are mentioned in 62% of substantial redundancy judgments in 2023–25, the lowest of any claim type against 67% in the population, though up from 52% in 2017–19. Redundancy cases more often turn on the documented process than on contested accounts.
Does a document being mentioned mean the tribunal relied on it?
No. The counts include judgments that rejected a document, gave it little weight or noted that it was missing. The figures describe what judgments discuss, not what decided the case. With 103 judgments in the late period, figures of a few percent move with a handful of cases.
Analyse the data
Redundancy judgments describe the contract and pay paperwork and little else. Query them by year and industry.
Intelligence Hub →Manage your evidence
Redundancy is decided on the process: pool, criteria, scores, consultation. Keep what you were sent and what you asked for.
Case Hub →Sources
Analysis of published Employment Tribunal decisions, 2017 to 2025, drawn from the public register on GOV.UK under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Population as stated in the hub analysis; 110 judgments with a redundancy claim in 2017–19 and 103 in 2023–25.
Related reading: what evidence do I need for an unfair redundancy claim, what evidence tribunal judgments describe, 2017 to 2025, and tribunal evidence is moving from paper to screen.
Other pieces in this series: unfair dismissal, disability discrimination, wages and working time, race, sex and age discrimination, whistleblowing.