Case 2219592/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Herron v Network Rail Infrastructure Limited FULL MERITS LIABILITY HEARING AT LONDON CENTRAL Heard by CVP on 5 September 2024 — 2024
- Case reference
- 2219592/2024
- Decision date
- 12 September 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Nicolle Non-legal
- Panel members
- Ms Z Dramas, Ms E Ali
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Herron
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr M Herron brought a claim under section 80G of the Employment Rights Act 1996 in relation to a flexible working application. The Tribunal found that the Respondent’s decision was not communicated to him within the decision period, and that the decision period was not extended in accordance with section 80G(1C). On that basis, the claim succeeded and the Tribunal made a declaration under section 80I that the claim was well-founded.
The Tribunal did not consider it appropriate to exercise its discretion under section 80I(1)(a) to order reconsideration of the application, or under section 80I(1)(b) to make an award of compensation. No monetary award was recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Flexible working | Claim succeeded under section 80G ERA 1996 because the Respondent’s decision was not communicated within the decision period and the decision period was not extended in accordance with section 80G(1C). The Tribunal made a declaration under section 80I that the claim was well-founded, but declined to order reconsideration or compensation under section 80I(1)(a) or (b). | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 80G ERA 1996
- section 80G(1C) ERA 1996
- section 80I ERA 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.