Case 3204827/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Higgins v Haris & Khalid Co Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 3204827/2022
- Decision date
- 30 June 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Beyzade Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mrs V Higgins, brought complaints recorded as unfair dismissal, redundancy payment, notice pay and holiday pay against Haris & Khalid Co Limited. Following a preliminary hearing on 13 March 2023, the tribunal ordered the claimant to pay a deposit of £200.00, and the order was sent to her on 14 March 2023.
The claimant did not pay the deposit. The tribunal therefore struck out the complaint under rule 39(4) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. The judgment states that the complaint of unfair dismissal, redundancy payment, notice pay and holiday pay was struck out.
Because the claims were struck out, the hearing listed for 27 and 28 July 2023 did not take place. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out after the claimant failed to pay the £200 deposit ordered following the preliminary hearing on 13 March 2023. | Struck out | — | — |
| Redundancy | Struck out under rule 39(4) because the ordered deposit was not paid. | Struck out | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The judgment refers to this as the complaint of 'Notice Pay'; no separate monetary award was made. | Struck out | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Struck out together with the other complaints for failure to pay the £200 deposit. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 39(4) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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.