Claimant v University of Southampton
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found in the main liability judgment that the dismissal was unfair; the principal reason for dismissal was conduct, but the process was predetermined and a sham from March 2020, with nothing the Claimant could have done to save herself.
The tribunal found in the main liability judgment that the Claimant was discriminated against on grounds of disability (psychiatric condition from March 2020); the instigation of the dismissal process was an act of harassment, and sickness absence and alleged lack of cooperation formed part of the reasoning for dismissal.
Facts
Dr Roche was employed as a lecturer in Land Law at the University of Southampton from November 2018. She was on a two-year probation period. From early in her employment, she experienced difficulties with a colleague (Nield) and her line manager (Hannigan), who marginalised and failed to support her. In March 2020, following a terse email exchange, management predetermined her dismissal. The Claimant went on long-term sick leave from July 2020 with psychiatric illness (disability from March 2020). Despite medical advice that she could return with support, the university initiated dismissal proceedings in April 2021, which the tribunal found to be a sham. She was dismissed in May 2021.
Decision
This was a remedy hearing following a liability judgment finding unfair dismissal and disability discrimination. The tribunal awarded a maximum 25% ACAS uplift for the university's bad faith sham procedures. It made no Polkey/Chagger reduction, finding it impossible to reliably predict what would have happened with fair management. A 20% contributory fault reduction was applied to unfair dismissal compensation only for the Claimant's March 2020 email exchange, but no reduction for discrimination. Quantum to be determined at a future hearing.
Practical note
Even where an employee's conduct contributed to management concerns, if an employer predetermined dismissal, failed to properly investigate or manage fairly, and ran a sham process, tribunals will award maximum ACAS uplifts and refuse Polkey reductions — the unfairness was so comprehensive that reconstruction of a fair counterfactual becomes impossible.
Adjustments
20% reduction to unfair dismissal compensatory award only. The Claimant's email exchange on 25 March 2020 was prickly, defensive, unhelpful, and antagonistic, contributing to management's decision to dismiss. However, much conduct occurred in the context of marginalisation by Nield/Hannigan. No reduction for disability discrimination.
Maximum 25% uplift awarded. The tribunal found the dismissal process was predetermined from March 2020 and a sham. The employer acted in bad faith, pretending to apply procedures while never genuinely considering retaining the Claimant. This was deliberate, egregious, and unreasonable. Subject to final sense-check at quantum stage.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 1404304/2021
- Decision date
- 14 October 2025
- Hearing type
- remedy
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- education
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Lecturer in Land Law
- Service
- 3 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister