Ms Redman (Counsel) For the v Respondent — 2024

The claimant worked in a London-based Video Lead role and, after her husband was offered a promotion in Spain in summer 2022, told the respondent she was considering moving. The tribunal found that she asked to work wholly remotely from Spain, that the respondent refused because the role remained London based and cross-border working would create tax risk, and that the claimant later raised a grievance and appeal which were not upheld.

The flexible working claims under sections 80G and 80I ERA 1996 and regulation 4 of the 2014 Regulations were not upheld. The tribunal found the claim was out of time and also found that the claimant had not made a compliant section 80F request in writing: there was no document stating that it was a flexible working application, no effective date, and no statement about any previous application. It also found that she had legal advice from December 2022 and had not shown that it was not reasonably practicable to bring the claim within time.

The indirect sex discrimination claim was allowed out of time on a just and equitable basis, but it failed on the merits. The PCP identified by the tribunal was that London-based employees had to work in London and not work fully remotely overseas. The tribunal did not find evidence that this put women, or the claimant, at a particular disadvantage on the facts of this case. If that was wrong, it accepted the respondent's tax-risk aim as legitimate and generally proportionate, although it considered the evidence on operational requirements to be less complete.

The direct sex discrimination claim also failed. For Act 1, the tribunal accepted Loic Gramaglia as the relevant comparator but found the real reason for refusing the move to Spain was the respondent's tax and business assessment, not sex. For Act 2, it found that Ms Budak would have asked for resignation from any employee in the same situation. For Act 3, it found that the BPP opportunity was not a standalone alternative role and that nothing had been denied as alleged. The constructive unfair dismissal claim failed because the return-to-work and sickness-management steps, taken in context, did not amount to a fundamental breach of mutual trust and confidence, and the tribunal found that the claimant resigned because she was not willing to return to London. The wrongful dismissal claim was dismissed upon withdrawal, and no monetary award was made.