Mr Michael Samson v Nottingham Trent University — 2026

Mr Michael Samson, a Senior Application Specialist with line management duties at Nottingham Trent University, requested 100% remote working on 1 May 2025. He had been working on campus at least one day each week, and the university had announced an increase to at least two days. The tribunal upheld his complaints that the university failed to handle his request reasonably, consult him before refusing it, and notify him of the final decision within the statutory period.

The tribunal accepted Samson's account that his meeting with his line manager on 13 May 2025 provided only a brief update, without meaningful discussion of his request. No consultation took place before refusal. This also meant the university failed to weigh the benefits and adverse business effects properly or explore alternatives he might accept. The appeal did not remedy the failure: consultation should occur while the request remains open to influence. The appeal decision relied partly on reassurance that his line manager had made an informed decision, although she said she had only communicated a decision made elsewhere and did not know who had made it.

The initial written refusal on 24 June 2025 fell within the two-month period, but the statutory deadline applied to the appeal decision where an appeal was available. The appeal outcome was notified on 29 July 2025, approximately four weeks after the 1 July deadline. There was no express agreement to extend the period, and the university accepted that the appeal had not been dealt with in time.

The remaining complaints were dismissed. Detrimental impact on performance was a permitted statutory ground for refusal. Applying Commotion Ltd v Rutty and Singh v Pennine Care NHS Foundation Trust, the tribunal considered whether the decision rested on incorrect facts, rather than whether the refusal itself was reasonable. Statements about the possible effects of remote working on people management and engagement were opinions about future circumstances. Samson accepted that he attended some campus meetings and that campus attendance increased the chance of spontaneous interaction. The requirement for more campus attendance also reflected the university's policy. He therefore did not establish an incorrect factual basis for the refusal.

The tribunal ordered the university to reconsider the request and expressed no view on its merits. It also awarded £3,004 gross compensation, representing four weeks at the statutory weekly cap of £751. Four weeks was just and equitable given the significant failure to consult. A higher award was not justified because reconsideration was the main remedy sought, the university had taken some steps to consider the request fairly, it had offered an appeal, and its initial decision was in time.