Research assistant's redundancy claim fails: funding cessation was genuine reason
A research assistant with 12 years' service lost her claim for unfair dismissal, whistleblowing detriment and disability discrimination after the tribunal found her redundancy was genuinely due to loss of funding.
1 min read · Last updated 19 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a Research Assistant from 8 October 2008 until 30 September 2020.
- Her role was funded by external grants from diabetes registries and a cancer research fund.
- She was placed at risk of redundancy in October 2018 and again in October 2019 due to lack of funding.
- The claimant made allegations of protected disclosures about data breaches and health and safety issues.
- The tribunal found the dismissal was genuinely due to redundancy and not because of any protected disclosure or disability.
- The claimant's claims of unfair dismissal, automatic unfair dismissal, whistleblowing detriment, and disability discrimination were all dismissed.
Timeline
-
Employment commenced
Claimant started as a Research Assistant at the Institute of Health and Society on a fixed-term contract.
-
First at-risk of redundancy letter
Claimant received a letter informing her that redundancy procedure was commencing due to lack of funding confirmation.
-
Notice of redundancy
Claimant was given notice of redundancy with termination date of 7 April 2019.
-
Meeting with line manager
Claimant met with Dr McNally who secured bridging funding, halting the redundancy process.
-
Stage 1 absence review meeting
Claimant was invited to a formal absence review meeting due to three absences in six months.
-
Second at-risk of redundancy letter
Claimant was again placed at risk of redundancy as contract end approached.
-
Notice of dismissal by reason of redundancy
Claimant received notice that her employment would end on 6 May 2020 due to redundancy.
-
Contract extended to 30 September 2020
Claimant's contract was extended until 30 September 2020 after some funding was secured.
-
Meeting about funding suspension
Claimant was informed that East Midlands Registry was suspending funding, likely leading to non-extension of contract.
-
Employment terminated
Claimant's employment ended by reason of redundancy as funding for her role ceased.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant's dismissal was for redundancy or another reason, whether she had made protected disclosures and suffered detriment as a result, and whether she was discriminated against because of her disability.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed all of the claimant's claims.
The key reasons were:
- The redundancy was genuine: the claimant's role was funded by external grants that ended, and the university had no alternative funding.
- The claimant's disclosures about data breaches and health and safety were not the reason for her dismissal; the redundancy process was already underway before some of them were made.
- The claimant's disability did not cause the redundancy; the decision to bring forward her termination date was due to funding suspension, not her sickness absence.
No compensation was awarded as all claims failed.
Lessons & takeaways
- If your role is funded by external grants, be aware that the end of that funding can be a genuine redundancy situation, even if you have long service.
- Making protected disclosures does not automatically protect you from redundancy if the redundancy is genuine and unconnected to the disclosures.
- To succeed in a disability discrimination claim, you must show that your disability was a cause of the unfavourable treatment, not just that it occurred around the same time.
When funding runs out: a genuine redundancy
This case shows that even a long-serving employee can be fairly dismissed when the money for their role dries up. The research assistant had worked for Newcastle University for 12 years, but her post was entirely dependent on external grants. When those grants ended, the university had no choice but to make her redundant.
The claimant argued that the real reason for her dismissal was her whistleblowing about data breaches and health and safety issues, or her disability. However, the tribunal found that the redundancy process had started before many of those disclosures were made, and that the university had followed a fair procedure, including consulting with her and looking for alternative roles.
What the university did right
The tribunal noted that the university had a clear funding problem and communicated this to the claimant. It extended her contract when bridging funding was found, and only terminated her employment when that funding was suspended. The university also considered alternative employment, but none was available.
Why the result matters
This case is a reminder that redundancy is a potentially fair reason for dismissal, even if the employee has other issues like disability or whistleblowing. The key is whether the redundancy is genuine and the process is fair. Employees in similar situations should focus on whether their employer has followed proper consultation and selection procedures, rather than assuming that other factors automatically make the dismissal unfair.
Similar cases
Dismissed for redundancy that wasn't genuine: a warning for employers
A former employee was unfairly dismissed after her employer failed to prove a genuine redundancy exercise. The tribunal awarded £1,921.85 in compensation.
Engagement manager loses constructive dismissal and whistleblowing claims against NHS board
A manager with nine years' service failed to prove he was constructively dismissed or discriminated against after resigning from NHS Cheshire and Merseyside Integrated Care Board. The tribunal dismissed all claims including disability discrimination, harassment, and whistleblowing detriment.
Governance Manager's discrimination and unfair dismissal claims rejected
A Governance Manager who brought multiple claims of discrimination, victimisation and unfair dismissal after being made redundant has lost her case. The tribunal ordered her to pay £20,000 in costs.
Head teacher's discrimination and whistleblowing claims survive strike-out bid
An employment tribunal has refused to strike out most claims brought by a former head teacher against Darul Uloom Al Arabiya Al Islamia, including allegations of disability discrimination and whistleblowing detriment. However, the reasonable adjustments claim was ordered to be subject to a deposit order hearing.