Mr O’Keefe, Counsel For the v Respondent — 2025

The Claimant had been continuously employed by the Respondent as a Post Doctorial Research Assistant from 18 October 2017 under a series of fixed-term contracts funded by external research grants. The issue for the Tribunal was whether the extension to the Claimant's employment under the fixed term contract commencing on 1 April 2022 was justified on objective grounds, such that he was entitled to be treated as a permanent employee under Regulations 8 and 9 of the Fixed Term Employee (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2002.

The Tribunal accepted that the Claimant's employment was always funded by external, time-limited funding and that there was no expectation that the role would continue beyond the grant funding available. It found that each time a fixed-term contract was entered into, the Respondent made clear that the work was dependent on external research grants and that there was no expectation of continuation if further funding was not available. The current contract, running from 1 April 2022 to 30 March 2025, was funded by an STFC grant, and the Tribunal found there was no funding available to continue the role beyond 30 March 2025 and no expectation that such funding would become available.

The Tribunal applied the objective-grounds approach described in Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families v Fletcher and Duncombe v Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families, including the need for precise and concrete circumstances capable of justifying the use of successive fixed-term contracts. It concluded that the use of fixed-term contracts responded to a genuine need, was appropriate for the objective pursued, and was necessary for that purpose. The Tribunal noted that it was not for it to assess whether the Respondent's financing arrangements were reasonable, only whether the contractual limitation was objectively justified.

The Tribunal held that the Respondent's decision not to make the Claimant permanent was justified on objective grounds and that the Claimant's claim failed. The judgment records no monetary award.