Dr A Moghaddam v Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of the University of Oxford & Ors

Dr A Moghaddam v Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of the University of Oxford & Ors

The tribunal was entitled to find the fixed-term contract justified and the appellant not a permanent employee; however, it failed to properly address whether detriments were suffered due to protected disclosures and whether the dismissal was procedurally unfair, requiring remission of these issues. The finding that the appellant was not disabled at the relevant time was not perverse and stands.

Parties
Appellant: Dr A Moghaddam; 1st Respondent: Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of the University of Oxford; 2nd Respondent: Professor Q Sattentau; 3rd Respondent: Professor M Freeman
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 September 2024
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; remitted for rehearing on specified issues
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Whistleblowing, Fixed Term Employment, Disability Discrimination, Procedural Fairness
Employment Law Equality Law Unfair Dismissal Whistleblowing Fixed Term Employment Disability Discrimination Procedural Fairness

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dr A Moghaddam

Appellant

Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of the University of Oxford

1st Respondent

Professor Q Sattentau

2nd Respondent

Professor M Freeman

3rd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant became a permanent employee under reg 8 of the Fixed-Term Employees (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2002
  2. 2 Whether the appellant suffered detriment due to protected disclosures (whistleblowing)
  3. 3 Whether the dismissal was procedurally unfair under section 98(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996

Ratio Decidendi

The tribunal was entitled to find the fixed-term contract justified and the appellant not a permanent employee; however, it failed to properly address whether detriments were suffered due to protected disclosures and whether the dismissal was procedurally unfair, requiring remission of these issues. The finding that the appellant was not disabled at the relevant time was not perverse and stands.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; remitted for rehearing on specified issues

Orders

  • Issues of whistleblowing detriment and procedural unfair dismissal to be remitted to a fresh tribunal for reconsideration.
  • Findings of primary fact and conclusions of the current tribunal to bind the new tribunal except where inconsistent with this judgment.