Case 2406698/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Corrigan v The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman — 2024
- Case reference
- 2406698/2022
- Decision date
- 26 April 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Barker
- Venue
- Manchester
- Panel members
- Ms C Nield, Mr P Stowe
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Corrigan
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr R Corrigan's claim concerned an application for a variation of his contract under s80F Employment Rights Act 1996. Sitting in Manchester on 15 and 16 April 2024, the tribunal, constituted by Employment Judge Barker with Ms C Nield and Mr P Stowe, recorded an oral judgment in which it found that the respondent failed to comply with s80G(1)(aa) ERA 1996 in relation to that application.
The judgment does not record any separate monetary award or other remedy. It also does not set out written reasons, noting that reasons were given orally at the hearing and would not be provided unless requested in accordance with the tribunal's standard practice. On the written record, the material outcome is therefore that the claimant succeeded on the statutory flexible working complaint and no award is stated.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Flexible working | The tribunal found that the respondent failed to comply with s80G(1)(aa) Employment Rights Act 1996 in relation to the claimant's application for a variation of his contract under s80F ERA 1996. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s80F Employment Rights Act 1996
- s80G(1)(aa) 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.