Mr C Morris v Passport Office — 2023

Case reference: 2501658/2022
Decision date: 27 July 2023
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Aspden
Panel members: Mrs J Maugham, Mr KA Smith

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr C Morris

Respondent

Passport Office

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The tribunal unanimously found that the respondent failed to deal with Mr C Morris's application under section 80F of the Employment Rights Act 1996 in a reasonable manner. That complaint was therefore well founded.

The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay Mr Morris compensation of £1,292.31 for that failure. It also stated that the other complaints made by the claimant were not well founded and were dismissed. Reasons were given orally at the hearing, so no written reasons were provided unless requested.

Claims and outcomes

2 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Flexible working	The tribunal found the respondent failed to deal with the claimant's application under section 80F of the Employment Rights Act 1996 in a reasonable manner and awarded compensation for that failure.	Upheld	—	£1,292
Other	The judgment states that the claimant's other complaints were not well founded and were dismissed, but the extracted text does not specify those complaints individually.	Dismissed	—	—

Remedy

Monetary award

Total award: £1,292; across all upheld claims
Compensatory award: £1,292; compensatory remedy recorded

Legal tests applied

1 reference

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.

Open official judgment PDF on gov.uk

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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.