What's the difference between redundancy and unfair dismissal?

These are related but different concepts. Redundancy is a specific type of dismissal that can be fair. Unfair dismissal is a legal claim about how dismissal was handled—which can apply to redundancy if it's done badly.

What it is: Your job role genuinely no longer exists (business closure, reorganisation, automation, reduced workload).

Fair process: Consultation, fair selection, redundancy pay based on age/service/pay.

Pay: Statutory redundancy + notice pay.

Service needed: 2 years (6 months from January 2027).

What it is: Dismissal that breaks the law. Could be for many reasons: no fair reason, no fair process, discrimination, protected reasons (whistleblowing, pregnancy), etc.

Fair process: Valid reason, fair investigation/hearing/appeal process.

Pay: Basic award + compensatory award (often higher than redundancy pay).

Service needed: 2 years (6 months from January 2027), except for protected reasons (no requirement).

Scenario: Your employer says you're made redundant, but: (a) no consultation happens, (b) your job role is advertised again 2 weeks later, (c) you were about to take maternity leave.

Result: This is unfair dismissal (and possibly pregnancy discrimination). You can claim unfair dismissal compensation—potentially more than redundancy pay.

You claim unfair dismissal, not redundancy. But if genuine redundancy is unfairly handled, you get unfair dismissal compensation (which includes a "basic award" like redundancy pay, plus "compensatory award" for losses). Overall, compensation is usually higher than for fair redundancy.