Case 1400098/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs J Higgins v And and 2 others — 2023
- Case reference
- 1400098/2023
- Decision date
- 30 August 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge J Bax Date
Parties
4 namedClaimant
Mrs J Higgins
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant applied for reconsideration of the judgment dated 10 August 2023, which had dismissed her equal pay claim after she withdrew it. The application was made by email dated 15 December 2023 and was considered on the papers at a chambers hearing on 18 January 2024.
The Tribunal recorded that the reconsideration application was outside the 14-day time limit under Rule 71. The claimant said she had removed the claim in error at the preliminary hearing and realised this after taking advice from a barrister on 15 December 2023.
The Tribunal held that Rules 51 and 52 had taken effect when the claimant withdrew the equal pay claim, and cited authority that the Tribunal had no power to set aside a notice of withdrawal. The application for reconsideration was refused under Rule 72(1) because there was no reasonable prospect of the judgment being varied or revoked.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Equal pay | The equal pay claim had been dismissed in the judgment dated 10 August 2023 upon withdrawal by the claimant. This judgment refused the claimant's application for reconsideration of that dismissal. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
10 references- Rule 70 interests of justice
- Rule 71 14-day time limit
- Rule 72(1) no reasonable prospect of the judgment being varied or revoked
- Rules 51 and 52 withdrawal and dismissal
- Trimble v Supertravel Ltd
- Fforde v Black
- Williams v Ferrosan Ltd
- Newcastle Upon Tyne City Council v Marsden
- Outasight VB Ltd v Brown
- Khan v Heywood and Middleton Primary Care Trust
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.