Copy article

Remote working law in 2026 is shifting from “policy preference” to “regulated reality”

ended 26. February 2026

In a nutshell

Remote and hybrid working is moving into a more legally exposed phase in 2026. Not because there’s suddenly one shiny new “Remote Working Act”, but because multiple legal duties collide when you’re deciding where people work and why: flexible working rules, Equality Act risk, health and safety for homeworking, working time boundaries, and (increasingly) cross-border working complications. 

The practical message is: if your current approach is “manager discretion + vibes + we’ll deal with it when it comes up”, you’re leaving yourself wide open.

What’s changed (and why 2026 feels different)

1) Flexible working has become an everyday legal process, not a perk discussion

Remote/hybrid arrangements often arrive through flexible working requests. The article highlights that the post-2024 framework has raised expectations and increased the likelihood of disputes where employers refuse without a proper, evidenced process. 

2) Tribunals are looking hard at process, consistency, and timing

Where employers fall down isn’t always the final decision. It’s the paper trail (or lack of it), the lack of meaningful consultation, inconsistent outcomes between similar roles, and poor handling of linked issues like health or caring responsibilities. That scrutiny is already visible in tribunal decisions and reporting. 

3) “Remote working” now triggers wider compliance (not just HR)

The article points to the reality that remote work decisions can quickly drag in:

  • Health & safety duties for homeworking set-ups and workload/stress risk
  • Working time control and evidence of boundaries
  • Cross-border working risks (tax, immigration/right to work, social security, permanent establishment issues)

In other words: HR can’t be the only owner of this anymore. 

Relevant cases and tribunal outcomes that back this up

Miss Wilson v Financial Conduct Authority (Flexible Working)

This one is helpful because it shows two things at the same time:

There is no automatic right to work exclusively from home just because you want to.

But the legal mechanics matter (especially statutory steps and time limits), and employers can still be found at fault even where the underlying “business view” is understandable. 

Ministry of Justice homeworking refusal: disability/reasonable adjustments angle

Reported tribunal outcome: an administrative officer won around £29k after the Ministry of Justice refused WFH linked to serious menstrual health issues (reported through the lens of disability discrimination and reasonable adjustments). 

The key point: when health is in the mix, “WFH is not operationally ideal” can quickly become Equality Act territory, and inconsistency or poor handling is where employers get hit.

Why this becomes a bigger problem if it escalates: ET delays

Even where an employer might ultimately defend a decision, Employment Tribunal delays make the process itself costly and disruptive.

Official stats show that in Q2 2025, the Employment Tribunal received 12,000 single claim receipts and disposed of 5,900, with 52,000 single claim cases in the open caseload by end of September 2025. 

So remote working disputes that tip into claims can become long-running time drains, not quick resolutions.

The risk hotspots for SMEs (where this normally goes wrong)

  • Blanket rules (“everyone must be in 3 days”) without role-based rationale
  • Inconsistent decisions across similar roles / teams
  • Poor consultation (a “no” delivered quickly, then justified later)
  • Health-linked requests treated as preference instead of potential adjustments
  • Overseas remote working agreed informally, then finance/tax issues land later
  • Working time creep (out-of-hours culture) with no evidence of boundaries

Questions to be answered 

  1. If I asked you why Role A can work hybrid but Role B can’t, could you explain it clearly in writing?
  2. Do similar roles get similar outcomes on WFH requests, or does it depend which manager someone gets?
  3. When you refuse a request, are you consulting properly first, or deciding first and “consulting” afterwards?
  4. If someone links a WFH request to health, do you treat it as a reasonable adjustments conversation straight away?
  5. Do you allow overseas remote working informally… and has anyone checked tax/immigration implications before saying yes?
  6. If your last remote working decision landed in ET, would your evidence protect you or expose you?

Sources (URLs)

HRD Connect article (24 Feb 2026): https://www.hrdconnect.com/2026/02/24/remote-working-law-2026-new-phase/ 

Miss Wilson v Financial Conduct Authority (case page): https://www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal-decisions/miss-wilson-v-financial-conduct-authority-2302739-slash-2023 

Miss Wilson v FCA (judgment PDF): https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/65a8ecedb2f3c60013e5d4e9/Mrs_E_Wilson_v_Financial_Conduct_Authority_2302739-2023_Judgment__002_.pdf 

Birketts commentary on Miss Wilson decision (useful practical lens): https://www.birketts.co.uk/legal-update/dealing-with-remote-working-requests/ 

People Management report on MoJ WFH refusal (£29k): https://www.peoplemanagement.co.uk/article/1924886/admin-officer-wins-29k-tribunal-ministry-justice-refuses-work-home-request  

Lightfoots summary (MoJ reasonable adjustments): https://lightfoots.co.uk/ministry-of-justice-ordered-to-pay-29000-in-compensation-for-failing-to-make-reasonable-adjustments/  

Tribunal Statistics Quarterly (Jul–Sep 2025): https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/tribunals-statistics-quarterly-july-to-september-2025/tribunal-statistics-quarterly-july-to-september-2025  

 

1 responses from the Newspage community

Copy all

Copy

Colette Mason
AI Ethics Consultant at Clever Clogs AI
If you want to accelerate swapping people for AI, this mess is a fantastic way to engineer that change.

Botch someone's flexible working request and you don't just risk a tribunal, you tell the employee their judgment doesn't matter. They stop volunteering great ideas. They stop fixing problems you didn't know existed. They quietly become exactly the disengaged, quietly disruptive employee you wouldn't want to hire.

The mechanics aren't mysterious. Workers have statutory rights. Managers have vibes. Vibes come from one leader blocking a request and another waving it through just down the corridor.

When the employee takes that vibe to a judge, vibes lose. The employer pays for every shortcut they didn't document, plus years of aggravation as the tribunal rumbles along.

Somewhere right now a middle manager is refusing a working-from-home request while answering Teams messages from their kitchen. And nobody in the room has the nerve to point that out.