Guy Matthews v CGI IT UK Ltd
[2024] EAT 38
Dr A Moghaddam v Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of the University of Oxford & Ors
30 September 2024
[2024] EAT 156
Employment Appeal Tribunal
A scientist sued his university for unfair dismissal, claiming he was a whistleblower and disabled. A lower court dismissed the case. A higher court agreed on some points but sent parts of the case back for a new trial because the first court didn't follow the rules properly when it looked at the scientist's whistleblower and dismissal claims.
Key Facts
- •Dr Moghaddam (C) was a senior post-doctoral research scientist employed by the University of Oxford (R1) under successive fixed-term contracts.
- •His employment was dependent on research grant funding.
- •In 2018, a dispute arose with his supervisor (R2) regarding a grant application, leading to allegations of plagiarism and breach of academic ethics by C.
- •C's contract expired on 31 March 2019, and he brought claims for unfair dismissal, whistleblower detriment, and disability discrimination.
- •The Employment Tribunal (ET) dismissed all claims, finding redundancy as the reason for the contract's termination.
- •C appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT).
Legal Principles
Regulation 8 of the Fixed-Term Employees (Prevention of less favourable treatment) Regulations 2002: A fixed-term contract automatically converts to a permanent contract after four years of continuous employment unless the latest renewal is objectively justified.
Fixed-Term Employees (Prevention of less favourable treatment) Regulations 2002, Regulation 8
Section 47B of the Employment Rights Act 1996: A worker is protected from detriment if the detriment is done on the grounds that they made protected disclosures (whistleblowing).
Employment Rights Act 1996, Section 47B
Section 98(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996: A dismissal may be procedurally unfair if the employer failed to comply with the proper procedure, even if the reason for the dismissal is fair. The Polkey principle clarifies that even if procedural unfairness is established, the dismissal might still be fair if the procedural steps wouldn't have altered the outcome.
Employment Rights Act 1996, Section 98(4); Polkey v Dayton Ltd [1988] 1 AC 344
Equality Act 2010, Section 6: Defines disability as a physical or mental impairment with a substantial and long-term adverse effect on ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities.
Equality Act 2010, Section 6
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed regarding the claim of permanent employment under Regulation 8.
The EAT found that while the ET's reasoning wasn't the clearest, it was not perverse; the renewal of the contract was objectively justified.
Appeal allowed regarding the whistleblower detriment claim.
The ET failed to make express findings on the detriments and to properly apply the causation test (material influence).
Appeal allowed regarding the procedural unfair dismissal claim.
The ET committed the Polkey error by considering whether procedural steps would have changed the outcome, rather than whether the employer acted reasonably in the process.
Appeal dismissed regarding the disability discrimination claim.
The EAT found sufficient evidence to support the ET's conclusion that C was not disabled at the relevant time.