Case 1400028/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Ms H Floyd v His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service — 2026
- Case reference
- 1400028/2025
- Decision date
- 16 January 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ferguson Representation
- Venue
- Bristol
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms H Floyd
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Claimant made a flexible working application under section 80F of the Employment Rights Act 1996 on 16 April 2024. The Tribunal found that her complaint under section 80G(1) was well-founded on three grounds: the Respondent did not deal with the application in a reasonable manner, did not notify her of the decision within the decision period, and refused the application for a reason not falling within the permissible list set out in section 80G(1)(b).
The Tribunal ordered the Respondent to reconsider the application and to pay the Claimant six weeks' pay amounting to £4,200. The judgment was given orally at a video hearing on 16 January 2026, with written reasons not provided unless requested within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Flexible working | Complaint under s.80G(1) Employment Rights Act 1996 well-founded: Respondent did not deal with the application in a reasonable manner, did not notify the decision within the decision period, and refused the application for a reason not falling within the permissible list in s.80G(1)(b). Respondent ordered to reconsider the application. | Upheld | — | £4,200 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,200
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £4,200
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 80F Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 80G(1) Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 80G(1)(b) Employment Rights Act 1996
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.