Dr. M Abbasi v University of Surrey FINAL HEARING — 2024

The tribunal rejected the breach of contract claim. It found that the Enhanced Voluntary Severance scheme was expressly described as non-contractual in the scheme documents and FAQs, including the February 2019 FAQ stating that EVS was not a contractual right. On that basis, no contractual entitlement arose from the scheme itself, from later FAQ changes, from Professor Richter’s conversation with the claimant on 28 March 2019, or from Professor Miller’s letter of the same date. The tribunal accepted that the claimant had been given incorrect information on 28 March 2019, but found the error was corrected later that day and that the letter was intended to leave open the possibility of an EVS application rather than to approve one.

The tribunal upheld the claim under the Fixed-Term Employees (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2002. Although the respondent had described the claimant’s role as having permanent status from 1 August 2016, the tribunal found that, in reality, he continued to be treated as a fixed-term employee because he was repeatedly told that his post would end on specified dates. It accepted the claimant was treated as a fixed-term employee at the material time and found PR was a comparable permanent employee. It also found that the claimant was referred to as a fixed-term employee in the EVS spreadsheet and related email correspondence.

On time limit, the tribunal held that the detriment did not crystallise on 28 March 2019, because Professor Miller’s letter created the impression that EVS might still be available. It found the claimant became aware definitively that he would not receive an EVS payment only on 2 September 2019, so the claim was in time; alternatively, it would have been just and equitable to extend time. On justification, the tribunal accepted the respondent’s general reasons for introducing EVS, including cost savings and reducing compulsory redundancies, but held that those reasons did not justify excluding this claimant on the facts. It found the respondent had acted on an incorrect understanding of the funding position for the Designscapes project, accepted evidence that the project continued beyond the claimant’s departure, and noted that the claimant was involved in other work and projects as well.

The tribunal awarded the claimant £17,769.50, being the amount he would have received under EVS if his application had been accepted. It rejected the respondent’s argument for any reduction based on later pay received up to 16 January 2020 and said there was no basis in regulation 7 for such a deduction. A separate case management order was to be issued on interest.