Flexible working refusal upheld: homeworking rejected on quality grounds
An HMRC assistant officer's claim that her flexible working application was unreasonably refused has been dismissed by the Newcastle Employment Tribunal. The tribunal found the employer properly considered the request and rejected it on the permitted ground of detrimental impact on quality.
2 min read · Last updated 19 May 2026
Case details
- #flexible-working
- #homeworking
- #covid-19
- #carer
- #quality-impact
Key facts
- The claimant applied for contractual homeworking on 6 April 2022 but the application did not state it was a statutory request or specify a start date.
- A second application on 28 June 2022 explicitly stated it was a statutory request and specified a start date of 1 September 2022.
- The respondent considered both applications together at an appeal hearing on 20 July 2022.
- The respondent refused the application on the ground of detrimental impact on quality.
- The claimant's husband has COPD and she is his registered carer.
Timeline
-
New Way of Working announced
Employees informed of hybrid working policy and ability to seek flexible working.
-
First homeworking application
Claimant submitted a contractual homeworking application, not explicitly a statutory request, without a start date.
-
First application rejected
Lindsay Goldie-Maughan rejected the contractual homeworking application.
-
Appeal lodged
Claimant appealed the rejection of her first application.
-
Second application submitted
Claimant submitted a revised application explicitly as a statutory flexible working request, with start date 1 September 2022.
-
Appeal and application hearing
Angus Robson held a hearing to consider both the appeal and the new application together.
-
Final decision
Angus Robson rejected the appeal and the flexible working application on quality grounds.
-
ACAS notified
Claimant notified ACAS of her claim.
-
Claim presented
Claimant presented her claim to the Employment Tribunal.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether HMRC dealt with the employee's flexible working application in a reasonable manner and refused it only on a permitted ground, specifically detrimental impact on quality.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the claim, ruling that HMRC acted reasonably in refusing the employee's request for contractual homeworking.
The key reasons were:
- The employer properly considered both applications together and gave a clear reason for refusal: detrimental impact on quality.
- The employer followed its own procedure and the statutory framework.
- The employee's application was not treated as a statutory request initially, but the employer still considered it.
No compensation was awarded as the claim was dismissed.
Lessons & takeaways
- Ensure your flexible working application explicitly states it is a statutory request and includes a proposed start date to trigger the employer's legal obligations.
- Employers can refuse a flexible working request on grounds of detrimental impact on quality, but must properly consider the request and give clear reasons.
- If you have caring responsibilities, raise them clearly in your application so the employer can consider them as part of the balancing exercise.
- An employer's failure to follow internal timescales may not automatically make the process unreasonable if the overall handling is fair.
A flexible working request that didn't succeed
This case shows that even when an employee has caring responsibilities, an employer may still be able to refuse a homeworking request if it can demonstrate a genuine impact on quality. The employee, an assistant officer at HMRC, applied to become a contractual home worker, partly because her husband has COPD and she is his registered carer. However, the tribunal found that HMRC had properly considered her application and rejected it on the permitted ground of detrimental impact on quality.
What the employer did right
HMRC considered both the employee's initial application and her subsequent statutory request together at an appeal hearing. The decision-maker, Angus Robson, concluded that full-time homeworking would have a detrimental impact on the quality of work, particularly in a role that required collaboration and supervision. The tribunal accepted that this was a genuine concern and that the employer had followed a reasonable process. The employee had also been offered a hybrid working arrangement, which she rejected.
Why the claim failed
The tribunal found that HMRC had dealt with the application in a reasonable manner. The employee argued that the employer had not considered her husband's condition properly, but the tribunal noted that the employer had taken it into account. The key issue was that the employer's concern about quality was a legitimate business reason, and the tribunal was not entitled to substitute its own view for that of the employer. The claim was dismissed in full.
What this means for similar claims
For employees seeking flexible working, this case highlights the importance of making a clear statutory request and providing evidence of how the arrangement would work. For employers, it confirms that a properly considered refusal on quality grounds can be upheld, provided the process is fair and the reasons are genuine. However, each case will turn on its own facts, and tribunals will scrutinise whether the employer has genuinely balanced the employee's needs against business impact.
Similar cases
Redundancy during maternity leave: unfair dismissal but no compensation
An English & Maths Community Coordinator with 9 years' service was unfairly dismissed by Birmingham Metropolitan College during maternity leave, but the tribunal awarded no compensation due to a 100% Polkey reduction.
Single parent allowed to add sex discrimination claim after flexible working refusal
A tribunal has allowed a former employee to amend her claim to include indirect sex discrimination after her employer refused her request for flexible hours during school closures.
Social worker's race discrimination claim over 'aggressive' stereotype dismissed
A black social worker with 15 years' service lost her claims of race discrimination and constructive dismissal after an altercation with a white colleague. The tribunal found no evidence of stereotyping or unfair treatment.
Before and after school club leader loses Covid-19 safety dismissal claim
A before and after school club leader who refused to attend work during the pandemic claiming serious and imminent danger has lost her unfair dismissal claim. The tribunal found her belief was not reasonable given the school's risk assessments.