Case 3304225/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Prof B Flyvbjerg v The Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of The University Of Oxford — 2023
- Case reference
- 3304225/2020
- Decision date
- 27 June 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Anstis Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Prof B Flyvbjerg
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal entered judgment under rule 21, noting that the respondent was no longer contesting part of the claims. It found that Prof B Flyvbjerg was unfairly dismissed. The extracted judgment does not set out further reasoning on the dismissal claim on this page, but the outcome was recorded as upheld.
The tribunal also found that the respondent subjected the claimant to unlawful direct age discrimination by applying the University of Oxford's Employer Justified Retirement Age policy. The policy required him to retire by 30 September 2021 unless he submitted a successful application to continue beyond that date. The judgment records that this amounted to direct age discrimination. No remedy figures are stated in the extracted text.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Judgment under rule 21; the tribunal stated that the claimant was unfairly dismissed. | Upheld | — | — |
| Age discrimination | The tribunal found unlawful direct age discrimination in applying the Employer Justified Retirement Age policy requiring the claimant to retire by 30 September 2021 unless he submitted a successful application to continue beyond that date. | Upheld | Age | — |
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.