Case 3335285/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Ms R Anghel v Middlesex University — 2017
- Case reference
- 3335285/2018
- Decision date
- 27 November 2017
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Quill
- Venue
- Watford
- Panel members
- Ms Brosnan, Mr English
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms R Anghel
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Ms Anghel's employment ended on 15 August 2018 when her fixed-term Senior Graduate Academic Assistant contract was not renewed. It accepted that Middlesex University was pursuing a People 2020 cost-saving programme, that the Psychology department decided between February and May 2018 to delete the SGAA posts, and that the reason for non-renewal was redundancy. Although it held that the 14 June 2018 meeting should have been preceded by clearer advance notice of its purpose, it found that Ms Anghel was then told about the redundancy decision, the redeployment scheme and the Associate Lecturer vacancy, and that the later interview process fairly selected another candidate.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the reason for non-renewal was redundancy and held the overall dismissal process was not unfair under section 98(4) ERA 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Harassment | This covered the allegations of harassment related to sex, harassment of a sexual nature, and harassment by less favourable treatment under sections 26(1), 26(2) and 26(3) Equality Act 2010. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
Legal tests applied
12 references- s.98 ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- Williams and ors v Compair Maxam Ltd
- Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd
- Thomas and Betts Manufacturing Co v Harding
- Jones v Northumberland County Council
- s.123 Equality Act 2010
- Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis v Hendricks
- Lyfar v Brighton and Hove University Hospitals Trust
- Aziz v FDA
- s.136 Equality Act 2010
- s.26 Equality Act 2010
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.