Case 2409028/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Andrew Billington v WCF Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 2409028/2023
- Decision date
- 4 September 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lloyd Representation
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Andrew Billington
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment concerned a preliminary hearing about the respondent's applications to strike out the claimant's disability discrimination claim and, alternatively, for a deposit order. The claimant alleged direct associative disability discrimination under section 13 of the Equality Act, arising in the context of his wife's terminal brain cancer diagnosis, alongside other claims that were not determined in this judgment.
The tribunal found that there were clear disputes of fact on key issues which could not be resolved without hearing and evaluating evidence. It was not satisfied that the disability discrimination claim had no reasonable prospect of success, or that it had little reasonable prospect of success, and therefore refused both the strike-out application and the deposit-order application.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Preliminary hearing only. The tribunal refused the respondent's applications to strike out the disability discrimination claim and to make a deposit order; the merits of the claim were not finally determined. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
9 references- Rule 37 Employment Tribunal Rules
- HM Prison Service v Dolby two-stage test
- Hassan v Tesco Stores Ltd
- Mbuisa v Cygnet Healthcare Ltd
- North Glamorgan NHS Trust v Ezsias
- Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Health Board v Ferguson
- Cox v Adecco
- Rule 39 Employment Tribunal Rules
- Hemdan v Ishmail
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.