Case 1800758/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr David Drainer v Gist Limited Heard by CVP — 2022
- Case reference
- 1800758/2022
- Decision date
- 23 August 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Panel members
- Ms N Downey, Mr J Rhodes
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr David Drainer
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr David Drainer, brought a complaint about the handling of his flexible working application against Gist Limited. The tribunal found the complaint well founded. It held that the respondent did not deal with the application in a reasonable manner, did not refuse it because it considered one of the grounds in section 80G(1)(b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 applied, and based the decision on incorrect facts.
As a remedy, the tribunal ordered the respondent to reconsider the application. It also ordered payment of compensation to the claimant in the sum of £4,352. The decision was unanimous.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Flexible working | The tribunal held that the respondent did not deal with the claimant's flexible working application in a reasonable manner, did not refuse it because it considered one of the grounds in section 80G(1)(b) Employment Rights Act 1996 applied, and based its decision on incorrect facts. | Upheld | — | £4,352 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,352
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £4,352
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
1 reference- 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.