Case 2600806/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Dr Paul Leaney v Loughborough University — 2022
- Case reference
- 2600806/2021
- Decision date
- 5 August 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Adkinson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Dr Paul Leaney
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningDr Leaney claimed that he had been constructively unfairly dismissed, alleging that Loughborough University had fundamentally breached the implied term of trust and confidence. The tribunal identified the most recent act said to have triggered the resignation as Professor Conway telling him on 29 June 2020 that he could not do anything about matters arising from the grievance or attempted appeal connected with the incident involving Student X.
The tribunal concluded that Dr Leaney affirmed his contract after that event. It relied on the delay between 29 June 2020 and the resignation on 28 September 2020, the absence of evidence that the University misled him during any negotiations, the fact that he did not work under protest, his receipt of legal advice, and the absence of circumstances justifying the delay. Applying Kaur, the tribunal held that the claim failed at that stage and dismissed it.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The claim was advanced as constructive unfair dismissal based on alleged breach of the implied term of trust and confidence. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- Kaur v Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust
- Buckland v Bournemouth University Higher Education Corp
- WE Cox Toner (International) Ltd v Crook
- Wright v North Ayrshire Council
- Leeds Dental Team v Rose
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.