Case 2217626/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Johnson v Money and Pension Service — 2024
- Case reference
- 2217626/2023
- Decision date
- 26 November 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Isaacson Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Johnson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dismissed the complaint about refusal of a flexible working request because it had not been presented within the applicable time limit. It found that it was reasonably practicable to bring the complaint within time, so the claim failed on limitation grounds and no remedy was awarded.
The tribunal also made preliminary findings on disability status under section 6 Equality Act 2010. It held that Mr A Johnson was a disabled person because of anxiety from September 2020 and because of a sleeping disorder from 2019. It identified the relevant period as 14 January 2020 to 8 December 2023, and found that at the relevant times he was not disabled by reason of a repetitive strain injury to his shoulder, high blood pressure, or high cholesterol.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Flexible working | The complaint was found to have been presented outside the applicable time limit, and the tribunal held it was reasonably practicable to present it in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 6 Equality Act 2010
- reasonably practicable
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.