Case 6001531/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Rumana Hashem v University of Brighton — 2025
- Case reference
- 6001531/2025
- Decision date
- 16 October 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Rice-Birchall Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Rumana Hashem
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dealt only with the claimant’s redundancy payment complaint. It held that section 155 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 does not give an employee a right to a redundancy payment unless they have been employed for two years or more, and found that Rumana Hashem had worked for the University of Brighton for less than two years.
On that basis, the tribunal concluded that the claimant did not have the right to a redundancy payment and struck out the claim. It recorded that the claimant had been given an opportunity to explain why the claim should not be struck out, but no acceptable reason was provided.
The judgment states that the claimant’s other complaints were not affected by this decision. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The claim was struck out because the claimant had been employed by the respondent for less than two years, so section 155 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 meant she did not have the right to a redundancy payment. The claimant was given an opportunity to explain why the claim should not be struck out, but no acceptable reason was provided. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 155 Employment Rights Act 1996
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.