Ms A Lyons-Shaw v Royal Danish Embassy London — 2020

Ms A Lyons-Shaw was employed by the Royal Danish Embassy London on fixed-term contracts and her second contract ended on 31 December 2020 without renewal. The tribunal accepted that the respondent had advanced several reasons for the non-renewal, including a claimed change in the e-commerce role, expiry of funding, and concerns about performance, but it found that the evidence did not support the claim that the post was genuinely temporary in the way the respondent suggested.

The tribunal relied in particular on the documents circulating in September 2020 and January 2021, which showed continuing London e-commerce/digital sales activity, continuing funding, and an ongoing place for London within the Trade Council’s wider e-commerce team. It rejected the respondent’s evidence that the funding had simply ended and found that the claimant had been led to understand that her work formed part of an ongoing programme running beyond 2020, rather than a role that would necessarily end on 31 December 2020.

The tribunal also found that the claimant’s application for the new role was not fairly considered. It noted that the respondent had decided not to interview her, had not given her an objective assessment process, and had not asked her to complete the case study that was later used to test candidates. The tribunal concluded that if the respondent’s case was treated as a reorganisation or as a non-renewal of a fixed-term role, fairness required at least consultation and an interview; if the real reason was performance, a formal capability process would have been needed. None of that happened.

The tribunal therefore held that the claimant’s contract was not renewed because the respondent was dissatisfied with her performance, but that the dismissal was unfair under section 98(4) ERA 1996. The judgment recorded that the question of remedy would be dealt with at a future date.