Case 2406429/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Walsh v Network Rail Infrastructure Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 2406429/2019
- Decision date
- 10 December 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Buzzard
- Venue
- Liverpool
- Panel members
- Mrs Ramsden, Mr Gates
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Walsh
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant made a statutory flexible working request on 11 February 2019 and appealed the respondent's refusal. The issue decided in this reserved judgment was a preliminary jurisdictional point: whether the parties had agreed a longer decision period, so that the claimant was not yet entitled to present a complaint when he lodged his claim on 25 June 2019.
The Tribunal found that an agreement to extend the decision period under the flexible working provisions did not have to be express and could be implied. It rejected the submission that the ACAS Code, ACAS guidance, or the heading "Employer's duties" required an express agreement using specific words.
The Tribunal found that the claimant had positively agreed that the appeal hearing would take place on 1 July 2019. It concluded that this implied agreement that the process could continue until at least that date. Because the claim was presented on 25 June 2019, before the extended decision period had ended and before the appeal outcome, the claim was dismissed as outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction to consider.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Flexible working | The Tribunal dismissed the s80H ERA flexible working claim because it found the claim was presented before the claimant was entitled to present it, following an implied agreement to extend the decision period. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- s80F Employment Rights Act 1996
- s80G Employment Rights Act 1996
- s80H Employment Rights Act 1996
- ACAS Code of Practice 5 (2014)
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.