Case 2500424/2021 · Employment Tribunal
In Person v Respondent — 2022
- Case reference
- 2500424/2021
- Decision date
- 20 July 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge G Johnson Members
- Venue
- Newcastle CFT
- Panel members
- Mr A Egerton, Dr D B Tirohl
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In Person
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Dr Emmeline Hall, worked as a Grade F teaching and scholarship lecturer in the School of Natural and Environmental Sciences on a series of fixed-term contracts from 1 July 2014. Following an annual workforce review and budgetary pressure, the respondent decided that the School could reduce Grade F T&S lecturer posts from 7.85 FTE to 5.85 FTE, equivalent to a reduction of two full-time posts. The tribunal accepted that the work required had diminished and that this amounted to a redundancy situation within section 139 ERA 1996.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found a genuine redundancy situation under section 139 ERA 1996, accepted the respondent's business reasons for reducing Grade F T&S lecturer posts, and held that the pool selection and interview process were fair under section 98(4) ERA 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Fixed-term employee regulations | The tribunal rejected the allegation of less favourable treatment on the ground of fixed-term status, finding that all Grade F T&S lecturers were placed in the same pool regardless of permanent or fixed-term status and that the claimant was selected because she scored lowest at interview. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- s.139 ERA 1996
- Regulation 3 Fixed Term Employees (Protection from less favourable treatment) Regulations 2000
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.