Case 2402795/2022 · Employment Tribunal
M Higginbotham v Factory Outlet (NW) Limited and 2 others — 2023
- Case reference
- 2402795/2022
- Decision date
- 11 July 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Batten
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
4 namedClaimant
M Higginbotham
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing on 5 July 2023 before Employment Judge Batten sitting alone in Manchester, the tribunal dealt with limitation and case-management issues rather than the merits. It dismissed the complaints of unfair dismissal, breach of contract, and unauthorised deductions from wages/holiday pay because they had not been presented within the relevant three-month period and the tribunal was satisfied that it was reasonably practicable to present them in time.
The tribunal also dismissed the disability discrimination complaint. It held that the claim was presented outside the time limit in section 123(1) of the Equality Act 2010 and that it was not just and equitable to extend time.
Complaints brought against the second and third respondents were struck out for having no reasonable prospects of success. No remedy or monetary award was recorded.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed at preliminary hearing because it was not presented within the relevant time limit and the tribunal was satisfied it was reasonably practicable to present it in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Dismissed at preliminary hearing because it was not presented within the relevant time limit and the tribunal was satisfied it was reasonably practicable to present it in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment grouped unauthorised deductions from wages and holiday pay together; this complaint was dismissed as out of time on the basis that it was reasonably practicable to present it before the three-month period expired. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Dismissed because it was presented outside the time limit in section 123(1) of the Equality Act 2010 and the tribunal did not consider it just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Other | Complaints brought against the second and third respondents were struck out for having no reasonable prospects of success; the judgment does not identify a separate substantive claim type for this procedural disposal. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- reasonably practicable
- s.123(1) Equality Act 2010
- just and equitable
- no reasonable prospects of success
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.