Case 2408076/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Higham v Halton Borough Council — 2023
- Case reference
- 2408076/2021
- Decision date
- 10 August 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ainscough
- Venue
- Liverpool
- Panel members
- Ms L Heath, Ms C Doyle
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Higham
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal sat in Liverpool on 12 to 16 June 2023 before Employment Judge Ainscough, with lay members Ms L Heath and Ms C Doyle. It dismissed the claimant's constructive unfair dismissal claim.
The tribunal also found that Mr Higham was a disabled person because of his hernia impairment and anxiety impairment within section 6 of the Equality Act 2010. Despite that finding, it dismissed the complaints of direct disability discrimination, discrimination arising from disability, indirect disability discrimination, and failure to make reasonable adjustments.
The written judgment records the outcomes only. It states that reasons were given orally at the hearing, and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within the relevant time limit.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | Claim of constructive unfair dismissal dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Direct disability discrimination dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Discrimination arising from disability dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Indirect disability discrimination dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Failure to make reasonable adjustments dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
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.