Mr D Doyle v Represented by: Ms S Christie - Solicitor Lloyds Bank plc — 2024

The tribunal heard linked claims by Mr D Doyle, Mr G Lawson and Mr G Booth arising from 2024 ET1s about the outcome of, and reconsideration of, flexible working requests made in 2023. Each claimant had already brought an earlier tribunal claim about the original refusal, and each of those earlier claims was settled by COT3 terms requiring the respondent to reconsider the original request.

The tribunal held that the COT3 terms did not turn the reconsiderations into fresh statutory requests. It found that the 2024 claims concerned the same subject matter between the same parties as the earlier claims, which had been disposed of by Rule 52 dismissals after withdrawal, and that the Rule 52 exceptions did not apply. On that basis the claims were res judicata.

The tribunal rejected the submission that the claims were outside the earlier settlements or that they amounted to fresh applications for the purposes of section 80I. It held that the respondent had agreed only to reconsider the 2023 requests, and had done so, rather than agreeing to treat them as new section 80F applications.

The claimants pleaded that the respondent had failed to deal with the requests in a reasonable manner under section 80G(1)(a), but the tribunal held that that duty did not arise on the facts as advanced. It therefore found that the claims had no reasonable prospect of success and struck them out under Rule 37. No deposit order was made, and the tribunal noted that the claimants remained free to make a further flexible working application if they wished.