Case 2406233/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Whitehead v The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman — 2023
- Case reference
- 2406233/2023
- Decision date
- 23 October 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Kathryn Gibson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr P Whitehead
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr P Whitehead brought a complaint under section 80H Employment Rights Act 1996 concerning the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman’s handling of his flexible working application. Employment Judge Kathryn Gibson, sitting alone, heard the case on 13 October 2023 in Manchester by CVP and gave an oral judgment at the hearing.
The tribunal dismissed the complaint. It held that the claim under s.80H was not well founded. It also expressly found that the respondent did not fail to comply with s.80G(1) ERA 1996 in relation to the application for flexible working.
The tribunal further found that the respondent’s decision on the application was not based on incorrect facts. No monetary remedy was awarded, and the written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing, so no written reasons were provided unless separately requested.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Flexible working | Complaint brought under section 80H Employment Rights Act 1996. The tribunal found it was not well founded; it also found no failure to comply with s.80G(1) in relation to the application and no incorrect facts in the respondent's decision. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.80H Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.80G(1) 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.