Case 3313818/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr James Gentle v Flare Products Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 3313818/2019
- Decision date
- 20 May 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dobbie Members
- Panel members
- Mrs J Costley, Mr R Eyre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr James Gentle
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Cambridge by CVP on 29 and 30 April 2021 before Employment Judge Dobbie with lay members Mrs J Costley and Mr R Eyre. The written record states that the tribunal gave its reasons orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested.
The tribunal upheld the Claimant's claim for detriment under s.47E Employment Rights Act 1996, which concerned detriment for making an application for flexible working. It also upheld the Claimant's claim for breach of the employer's duties in relation to applications for flexible working under s.80G Employment Rights Act 1996.
The Claimant's claim for automatic unfair dismissal under s.104C Employment Rights Act 1996 was dismissed. The extracted judgment does not record any monetary award or separate remedy figures.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Flexible working | Claim under s.47E Employment Rights Act 1996 (detriment for making an application for flexible working) succeeded. | Upheld | — | — |
| Flexible working | Claim for breach of the employer's duties in relation to applications for flexible working under s.80G Employment Rights Act 1996 succeeded. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Claim for automatic unfair dismissal under s.104C Employment Rights Act 1996 failed. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.