Case 2406650/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Alexandra Saffer v University of Salford — 2024
- Case reference
- 2406650/2022
- Decision date
- 20 August 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cookson
- Venue
- Manchester
- Panel members
- Ms A Jackson, Mr BJ McCaughey
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Alexandra Saffer
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Manchester on 12 to 16 August 2024 before Employment Judge Cookson, Ms A Jackson and Mr BJ McCaughey. Miss Alexandra Saffer brought claims against the University of Salford. The tribunal unanimously rejected the unfair dismissal complaint, recording that for the purposes of section 95 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 the claimant did not terminate her contract in circumstances where she was entitled to do so without notice by reason of the employer's conduct.
The tribunal also rejected the disability discrimination complaints, which were pleaded as failures to make reasonable adjustments. Those complaints were found not well-founded and were dismissed. The written record does not set out detailed reasons beyond the tribunal's conclusions, and no monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held, under section 95 ERA 1996, that the claimant did not terminate the contract in circumstances entitling her to do so without notice by reason of the employer's conduct. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The complaints of failure to make reasonable adjustments for disability were found not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 95 ERA 1996
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.