Woman wins right to work from home every day in landmark case

A British woman has just won the right to work from home every day, after an employment tribunal found her employer hadn’t justified why the office was necessary. It’s a decision that could reshape how flexible working requests are handled across the UK, and it lands in the middle of a national tug-of-war over where work actually happens.

She clutched a canvas tote and a stack of papers, the kind of ordinary armour you pick up when you’re tired of arguing the obvious. Her case wasn’t glamorous. It was practical. A commute that swallowed unpaid hours. A job she did better from a quiet corner at home. We’ve all had that moment when life asks for a bit of slack and work pretends it can’t hear.

*Then the judge spoke, and the room changed.*

A ruling that shifts the balance

The judgment didn’t say “everyone gets to stay home forever.” It said: prove why they can’t. That pivot matters. For years, many employers relied on habit and headline policies — two or three days in, because that’s what the neighbours do. This case pressed pause on that. Role, tasks, evidence, impact: those now sit centre stage.

Behind the legalese was something human. She asked to work from home every day, pointing to months of strong performance, fewer errors when she wasn’t hot-desking, and client feedback that meetings ran smoother online. The company argued “team culture” and “visibility.” The tribunal looked for proof that presence improved outcomes. It didn’t find enough. So the balance tipped.

The context has been building. UK law now gives a day-one right to request flexible working, faster response times, and an obligation to consult. There are still lawful reasons to refuse — cost, quality, performance, customer demand, organisation change — but the bar has moved from “policy says no” to “show your working.” Put simply: blanket rules won’t cut it if the job can be done well at home.

How the case unfolded — and what it signals

It began with a routine flexible working request. She set out why home was better: fewer distractions, time returned from the commute, a reliable setup she’d paid for herself. She shared metrics from the past year — higher client satisfaction, quicker turnaround, fewer corrections. Her manager replied with a stock line about team cohesion and training the juniors. It read like a shrug.

When the refusal came, she appealed, calmly asking for specifics. Which tasks needed her in the room? What evidence showed the office improved quality? Could team rituals happen on set video days? The paper trail mattered. At the hearing, those emails and figures told a simple story: measurable output up, non-measurable fears down. The judge didn’t ban offices. The judge asked for reasons.

It’s a nudge with bite. Employers can still require attendance, and plenty will. Labs, retail, healthcare, and certain client-facing roles hinge on presence. But for screen-based work, this case sharpens the question from “why home?” to “why not home?” The signal to HR is clear: evidence first, assumptions last.

Making a full-time homeworking case: what actually works

Start with a work diary and scorecard. Two weeks is enough. Capture the tasks you do, the time saved without a commute, and concrete outcomes: response times, error rates, client feedback, project milestones. Pair that with a simple risk map — data security, collaboration, visibility — and how you handle each: VPN, scheduled team stand-ups, shared dashboards, open calendars. Package it as a one-page brief, not a manifesto.

Set boundaries that reassure, not restrict. Propose core hours, a weekly “office hours” video slot, and a short overlap window for quick decisions. Offer a tool stack that makes you easy to find — chat, status indicators, a virtual desk number. Say when you’ll be on-site if there’s a genuine need, like annual planning or confidential workshops. Let’s be honest: nobody actually does that every day.

When you submit the request, ask to be judged on outcomes, not footprints. Offer a trial period with agreed metrics. If leadership talks “culture,” invite them to co-design rituals that travel well — rotating pair work, Friday demos, monthly project cafés. Homeworking thrives on visibility by choice, not by hallway.

“This isn’t a free-for-all. It’s a call for proof. If the job is performed to standard and collaboration is planned, tribunals will expect employers to explain — specifically — what the office uniquely delivers.”

• Measure what matters: output, quality, client impact.
• Pre-empt risks with clear fixes: security, comms, coverage.
• Offer a time-boxed pilot with shared KPIs.
• Keep the tone practical, not combative.

What employers and workers should weigh next

The ground is shifting under real people, not policy slides. Hybrid will stay common, and many teams love it. This ruling doesn’t crown a winner. It asks both sides to slow down, name the work, and show where it lives best. A spreadsheet doesn’t care if your chair spins at home or in Canary Wharf. Your energy does. Your team’s rhythm does. Your clients’ expectations do.

FAQ :

• Does this ruling mean everyone can work from home full-time?No. It means employers need evidence for requiring office attendance where the role can be done remotely.
• What counts as good evidence for homeworking?Output metrics, quality scores, client feedback, fewer errors, faster turnaround, and documented collaboration routines.
• Can an employer still refuse a full-time WFH request?Yes, for valid reasons like cost, quality, performance, customer demand, or structural changes — but they must be specific.
• Should I ask for a trial first?Often wise. A three-month pilot with agreed KPIs can convert sceptics and creates a fair record.
• What if my job involves mentoring juniors?Propose scheduled pairing, shadowing via video, and planned in-person days for training bursts rather than blanket office rules.