Flexible Working Requests - Lessons for Employers from Wilson v Financial Conduct Authority

Understanding Flexible Working in 2026

Flexible working has become a normal part of working life for many UK businesses. But what happlens when an employee asks to work entirely from home and their employer believes that doing so could affect their role, their team or the wider business?  That's what happened in the case of Wilson v Financial Conduct Authority (2023).

 Speak to an employment law expert today

The Employment Tribunal case of Wilson v Financial Conduct Authority provides a useful example for employers. The case concerned a senior manager who wanted to continue working entirely remotely. The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) refused the request, arguing that full-time remote working could have a detrimental impact on performance and the quality of her work.

The tribunal found that the FCA's refusal was not based on incorrect facts. It did not decide whether the refusal was the best or objectively reasonable business decision. However, the FCA did make a procedural mistake by failing to communicate the outcome of the employee's appeal within the statutory time limit.

For employers, the case highlights an important distinction - employees have a right to request flexible working, but that does not mean every request has to be accepted. What matters is how the request is considered, the reasons for the decision and whether the correct procedure is followed.

The Background to the Case

Miss Wilson was a Senior Manager at the Financial Conduct Authority. She had been working remotely since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. As workplaces began to return to more conventional working arrangements, the FCA introduced a hybrid working approach. Employees were expected to spend a proportion of their working time in the office.

In December 2022, Miss Wilson submitted a formal flexible working application asking to work entirely remotely. In other words, she wanted to continue working from home without having to attend a physical office. This was not simply a request to work from home occasionally. It was a request to change her contractual working arrangements so that she could work remotely on a permanent basis.

Miss Wilson argued that she had demonstrated that she could perform her role effectively from home. Her performance had remained strong while working remotely and she believed that there was no need for her to return to the office.

The FCA took a different view.

Safeguard your business with our employment contracts guarantee

Why Did the FCA Refuse the Request? 

The FCA rejected the request on the basis that working entirely from home could have a detrimental impact on performance and quality of output. Importantly, this was not based simply on a general belief that employees should be in the office. The decision-maker considered the particular requirements of Miss Wilson's role and her responsibilities as a senior manager. She had responsibility for managing employees and played a role in activities including training, coaching, leadership and interaction with colleagues.

The FCA considered that having no physical presence in the workplace could make some of these responsibilities more difficult. This included providing face-to-face training and coaching and supporting new members of the team.

As a result, the FCA relied on one of the statutory grounds for refusing a flexible working request, namely that the proposed arrangement would have a detrimental impact on performance or quality of output. Miss Wilson challenged the decision, arguing that the FCA had relied on incorrect facts when refusing her request. That brought the dispute before the Employment Tribunal.

What Did the Employment Tribunal Decide? 

The Employment Tribunal considered whether the FCA had failed to comply with the applicable procedure and whether the decision to reject the request was based on incorrect facts; it was not conducting a general merits review of whether the refusal was objectively reasonable.

The tribunal acknowledged that Miss Wilson had performed well while working remotely. Nevertheless, on the evidence before it, the tribunal concluded that the decision-maker's concerns about the effect of entirely remote working on the requirements of her senior management role were not founded on incorrect facts.

The tribunal was particularly interested in the fact that the FCA's decision-maker had considered the circumstances of the role rather than simply applying a blanket rule.

The judgment recognised that remote working could have limitations in areas such as face-to-face communication, training and coaching. Consequently, the tribunal found that the FCA's concerns about the potential impact on performance and quality of output were not based on incorrect facts. This part of Miss Wilson's claim was therefore dismissed.

The FCA Did Get Something Wrong

However, there was another issue. Although the tribunal dismissed the allegation that the refusal was based on incorrect facts, it found that the FCA had failed to communicate the outcome of Miss Wilson's appeal within the applicable statutory decision period.

At the time of the request, the statutory decision period was three months. The FCA communicated the appeal outcome 21 days after that period had expired. The tribunal found that this was a breach and awarded compensation equivalent to one week's pay. This is an important lesson for employers. It is not enough to have a potentially legitimate reason for refusing a flexible working request. The process matters too.

The law has since changed. For statutory flexible working requests made under the current rules, employers generally have two months to consider the request and communicate the outcome, including any appeal. Employers and employees can agree to extend this period where appropriate.

What Can Employers Learn from Wilson v Financial Conduct Authority? 

The Wilson v Financial Conduct Authority case does not mean that employers can simply refuse requests for home working. Nor does it establish that senior employees cannot work remotely. Instead, it demonstrates that flexible working decisions are highly dependent on the individual circumstances.

As a first-instance Employment Tribunal decision, the judgment is not binding on other tribunals. It is best treated as a fact-specific illustration of how the statutory test was applied.

The tribunal was persuaded by the FCA's evidence because the decision-maker had considered the particular requirements of Miss Wilson's role and explained why full-time remote working could create difficulties.

For employers, there are several practical lessons. 

1. Consider each request individually. A blanket approach to flexible working is unlikely to be appropriate. The needs of one role may be very different from another, even within the same organisation.
2.  Base your decision on genuine business considerations. If you believe a proposed working arrangement would affect performance, quality, staffing or customer service, you should be able to explain why.
3. Keep a clear record of your decision-making. Evidence showing that the request was properly considered can be important if the decision is later challenged.
4. Follow the statutory procedure and deadlines. Even where an employer has a legitimate business reason for refusing a request, procedural failures can still lead to legal consequences.

These principles remain relevant as businesses continue to develop their hybrid and remote working policies.

 Get tailored HR support for your business

Does The Case Mean Employers Can Refuse Home Working? 

No. This is perhaps the most important point to take from the case. An employee does not have an automatic right to have a flexible working request accepted, but an employer must deal with a statutory request in accordance with the applicable legal framework.

An employer can refuse a request on one or more of the specified statutory business grounds. These include detrimental effects on performance or quality, additional costs, difficulties reorganising work, difficulties recruiting additional staff and detrimental effects on the ability to meet customer demand.

However, an employer should not simply assume that remote working will cause problems. The reasoning needs to relate to the actual circumstances. In Wilson, the FCA was able to point to the particular responsibilities of a senior manager and explain why it believed that completely remote working could affect aspects of the role. That is very different from saying that "we don't allow people to work from home".

What Does This Mean for Hybrid Working Policies? 

For employers reviewing their hybrid working arrangements, Wilson v Financial Conduct Authority is a useful reminder that flexibility needs to be managed carefully. A business may decide that certain roles need a degree of face-to-face interaction. That can be a legitimate consideration. But employers should be prepared to explain why particular attendance requirements are necessary and how they relate to the work being performed. The same principle applies when considering a flexible working request.

A request for one day of home working may present very different operational considerations from a request to work remotely five days a week. A role involving direct management of a large team may raise different issues from a role that can be performed independently.

Therefore, there is no single approach that will work for every organisation or every employee. The better approach is to have a clear framework while still considering individual circumstances.

What About the Current Flexible Working Rules? 

There is another reason why this case is particularly useful as a historical case study: the statutory flexible working framework has changed since Wilson made her request.

Employees now have the right to make a statutory flexible working request from the first day of employment. An employee may make up to two statutory requests in any 12-month period, although only one request may be live with the same employer at a time. Unless the request is accepted in full, the employer must consult the employee before making its decision. The employer must make and communicate its final decision within two months of receiving the request, unless an extension is agreed.

There is no separate statutory right of appeal, although the ACAS Code recommends that employers offer one as part of a reasonable procedure. Where an appeal is offered, the final appeal outcome must still fall within the two-month decision period unless an extension has been agreed.

The fundamental principle remains the same, however. A right to request flexible working is not a right to insist on a particular working arrangement.

Employers retain the ability to refuse a request where one or more of the statutory business reasons apply, provided the request is handled correctly.

The Importance of Getting the Process Right 

Wilson v Financial Conduct Authority is a useful reminder that employers need to think about both the decision and the process.

The FCA succeeded on the allegation that its refusal was based on incorrect facts because the tribunal was satisfied, on the evidence, that the relevant manager had considered the individual request and had identified concerns connected with the particular role. The tribunal did not undertake a broader assessment of whether the refusal was objectively reasonable. The FCA nevertheless faced a consequence because it failed to comply with the applicable time limit. For employers, this demonstrates why flexible working should not simply be treated as an informal HR conversation.

Managers need to understand how requests should be handled. HR teams need to keep track of deadlines. Unless a request is accepted in full, the employee must be consulted before the decision is made, and possible alternatives should be explored where appropriate. Decisions should be based on evidence and the particular circumstances of the role.

Employers should also remember that compliance with the statutory flexible working procedure does not remove potential obligations under the Equality Act 2010, including the duty to make reasonable adjustments for a disabled employee and the need to avoid unlawful discrimination.

Getting these things right can help reduce the risk of disputes and give employers greater confidence when making difficult decisions.

Flexible Working Requires a Balanced Approach 

Flexible working is now an established part of the modern workplace. For many businesses, hybrid working can offer significant benefits in terms of recruitment, retention and employee satisfaction. At the same time, employers need to consider how different working arrangements affect performance, collaboration, customer service and the wider needs of the organisation.

Wilson v Financial Conduct Authority does not give employers a blanket green light to reject home working.

Instead, it provides a useful example of what can happen when an employer can demonstrate that it has genuinely considered a request and can explain its decision by reference to the particular circumstances of the role.

For employers, the message is straightforward: take flexible working requests seriously, consider them individually, keep good records and make sure your process is legally compliant.

If you are reviewing your flexible working policy, dealing with a complex request or considering how hybrid working arrangements should operate within your organisation, our employment law team can provide practical, commercially focused advice.

Our employment law specialists advise employers across the UK on flexible working, employment policies and wider employment law issues.

Request a callback from a business employment law specialist