Case 2300946/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Shelly McAuley v Canterbury Christ Church University — 2023
- Case reference
- 2300946/2021
- Decision date
- 2 October 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Reed
- Venue
- London South
- Panel members
- Mr Paul Adkins, Ms Julie Cook
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Shelly McAuley
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant worked for Canterbury Christ Church University and was dismissed following a faculty merger and redundancy selection process. The respondent accepted that she was disabled under the Equality Act 2010 by reason of depression and General Anxiety Disorder. The tribunal found the unfair dismissal complaint well-founded.
The tribunal also found that the dismissal was unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability. It accepted that completing the merged faculty in time for the new academic year was a legitimate aim, but found that the evidence did not establish that the claimant's dismissal was a proportionate means of achieving that aim.
The tribunal did not decide remedy in this judgment. It stated that compensation for both unfair dismissal and discrimination should be approached on the basis of the claimant's chance of appointment in the selection processes, with further remedy issues to take account of later events including her subsequent health.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Liability only; remedy was to be dealt with at a further hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal upheld a complaint of unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability under section 15 Equality Act 2010. Liability only; remedy was to be dealt with at a further hearing. | Upheld | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- section 98(1)-(2) ERA
- Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd [1987] ICR 142
- s6 Equality Act 2010
- Section 15 Equality Act 2010
- proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.