Case 2500224/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs Emma Arnett-Davies v Ministry of Defence — 2021
- Case reference
- 2500224/2020
- Decision date
- 16 February 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge A.M.S. Green
- Panel members
- Mr SJ Lie, Ms D Winship
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs Emma Arnett-Davies
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant made a flexible working request on 5 June 2019 after being told her working pattern needed to change. The respondent initially refused the request on 19 September 2019, giving “detrimental effect on ability to meet customer demand” as the reason, and the claimant appealed. The respondent accepted the appeal even though its flexible working policy did not provide for one.
The Tribunal found that the decision period had been extended by agreement only until 19 September 2019. Once the respondent accepted the appeal, the appeal outcome also had to be given within the decision period unless a further extension was agreed. No further extension was agreed, and the appeal outcome was not sent until 5 November 2019, so the complaint about late notification was well founded.
The Tribunal dismissed the complaint that the refusal failed to specify a prescribed statutory ground. It held that the appeal decision had to be read with the original decision, which had expressly selected “detrimental effect on ability to meet customer demand”, one of the statutory reasons. For remedy, the Tribunal considered the breach to be a technical failure to seek an extension for the appeal and awarded two weeks’ net pay, totalling £376.40.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Flexible working | The Tribunal found the respondent failed to notify the claimant of the outcome of her appeal within the decision period, contrary to ERA 1996 section 80G(1)(aa). | Upheld | — | £376 |
| Flexible working | The Tribunal found the respondent's refusal of the flexible working request was in accordance with ERA 1996 section 80G(1)(b), because the original decision specified a statutory ground and the appeal outcome was read in that context. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Flexible working | The claimant confirmed during the hearing that she was no longer relying on the complaint that the rejection of her application was based on incorrect facts under ERA 1996 section 80H(1)(b). | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | The claimant withdrew her claim of indirect sex discrimination on 12 October 2020; the judgment records that the claim was dismissed following withdrawal. | Withdrawn | Sex | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £376
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
5 references- Employment Rights Act 1996 section 80G
- Employment Rights Act 1996 section 80H
- ACAS Code of Practice on Handling in a reasonable manner requests to work flexibly
- King v Tesco Stores plc ET case no 2301268/17
- Employment Rights Act 1996 section 227
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.