redundancy - unfair dismissal - discrimination?

Thanks - but if I do go along the line of unfair dismissal and the redundancy is found not to be genuine, does that mean that I will have to pay tax on the pay-out, so in effect shoot myself in the foot?
I feel it may be difficult to demonstrate proof of the underlying equal opportunity issues as they have been subtle - no confrontations as such, and there may not be any gain in persuing that avenue anyway other than hurt egos all around.

I was made redundant this week and told that it was not due to any performance issues, but due to the company's restructure (a company of more than 100 employees). I have been employed with them for almost 12 years. I had worked my way up within my department and was promoted to head of that department after 4 years. After another 4 years of outstanding work I went on 12 mths maternity leave, stating clearly to management that I intended return to my position after that time. However, the replacement was employed permanantly, so that my position was not preserved. He had been employed in my role with a slightly different title and with a higher salary. On return I was offered less responsible work at my previous pay with that new person as my new boss. It was also suggested I could return part-time, and choose any pro-rata time I wished. I ended up agreeing to the part-time work offer, simply because I did not want to part on bad terms or lodge a claim at that time and I did not want to be in a boring full-time position either. During the following 2 years I had the opportunity to work mainly off-site. I was not offered any professional development or raise during that time. Due to a relocation of a branch I returned recently to share the office space with the rest of my previous team, the new boss and a few new people as the department was actually expanding. The all-male culture of the office environment was not overly inviting and staff from other areas kept on asking how I could stand that boyz club! I personally did not take offence to their jargon, even though there were some sexist jokes and c-words. I am the longest serving staff member of this department, also the oldest and the only female. An external consultant who helped with recent restructure recommendations concluded that our department was understaffed. A new person (male) was employed at a reasonably senior level within the department about 4 weeks before I was made redundant. I have experience in all areas of responsibility within that department so my skills could have suited any "new" position created, yet I was not offered that new full-time position. The redundancy payment offered is very small, as it is calculated on a pro-rata wage that has not been reviewed for 4 years. Past practice had been that if redundancies were necessary they were "generous". This one is not. In addition my long service leave entitlements have been miscalculated (about half the amount it should be) but I might be able to get that part sorted out. Do I have a case and what could I get? If it is only up to 26 weeks pay at the miserable pro-rata rate it may not even be worth getting proper legal advice for as it would not be a large enough difference to be worth the hassle. Please let me know your thoughts on this. Thanks.