I do have some legal background, but NOT in employment law - that is why I’ve resisted answering.
My answer would have been similar to Geoff’s - get expert help - you can’t really trust this one to a forum.
One thing I do know is that for a redundancies to be upheld as genuine, there must be a reduced need for the work itself, NOT the person.
I.e. IF, due to changing working practises, reduced demand, or whatever, there is really less call for a particular kind of work, they may be entitled to make redundancies. What they can’t do is make the job-holder redundant, but then recruit someone to replace them, because that implies the job has not “gone” or diminished - if they have to get someone else in to do it, it must be as necessary as ever.
Work does not have to disappear absolutely for redundancies to be legitimate. It may be sufficient that the workload has fallen recently, meaning there is no longer enough for the number of people.
As to whether there is any form of discrimination, a crucial factor is whether anyone else is being considered for redundancy, or just you. If many people are under threat, it’s much harder to argue it’s anything to do with your MS (I was made redundant along with more than 600 people - the vast majority of whom did not have MS - it was therefore pretty futile to argue I’d been “singled out”.)
Has the business been going through hard times lately, meaning there are widespread cutbacks?
If it’s you, and ONLY you, is there some particular reason your job has not been as busy or essential lately? Do you do something that has suffered from falling demand?
I don’t think whether your post is funded is the issue - it’s whether it’s necessary. Just because your employer could continue to fund you doesn’t mean they’re obliged to. If your work isn’t seen as core to the success of the business, they can reallocate the funding to other areas, if they wish. That’s what management is all about - determining the priorities - sometimes leading to tough decisions. So they can pull the funding, and allocate it elsewhere. What they can’t do, however, is keep the funding - and give it to someone else for the identical job. So what they want to do - spend it on something else - is (probably) OK. What wouldn’t be OK is spending it on the same, as that would indicate the requirement for the work hadn’t lessened - they’re still willing to pay exactly the same for it, but to another person or people.