Case 1305794/2024 · Employment Tribunal
David Higgs v The Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust — 2025
- Case reference
- 1305794/2024
- Decision date
- 19 December 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Camp Approved
Parties
2 namedClaimant
David Higgs
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a judgment by consent. The tribunal recorded that the claimant, David Higgs, was unfairly dismissed by the respondent, The Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust. The claimant was not seeking reinstatement or re-engagement.
The respondent was ordered to pay the claimant compensation totalling £11,613, comprising a basic award of £7,461 and a compensatory award of £4,152. All other complaints, including any complaints of disability discrimination, were dismissed upon withdrawal pursuant to rules 50 and 51 of the ET Procedure Rules 2024.
The hearing listed for 15 to 19 December 2025 was cancelled and the proceedings concluded. The judgment does not set out detailed reasoning, as it was entered by consent.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Judgment by consent. Basic award £7,461 plus compensatory award £4,152, totalling £11,613. | Upheld | — | £11,613 |
| Disability discrimination | Dismissed upon withdrawal pursuant to rules 50 and 51 of the ET Procedure Rules 2024. | Withdrawn | Disability | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £11,613
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £7,461
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £4,152
- compensatory remedy recorded
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.