Case 3303974/2018 · Employment Tribunal

Mrs C Higgins v Trevor Wright — 2018

Case reference: 3303974/2018
Decision date: 5 December 2018
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Foxwell

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mrs C Higgins

Respondent

Trevor Wright

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

This is a Rule 21 Employment Tribunal judgment in case 3303974/2018. The extracted text records that the claim succeeds against Respondent 2, but it does not identify the underlying claim type or set out any factual findings beyond that outcome.

The tribunal directed that remedy would be determined at a separate Remedy Hearing listed for 4 March 2019 to 6 March 2019. No monetary award is recorded in the judgment text provided, and the decision therefore does not contain any split of compensation by claim type.

The available text also does not set out any legal test, witness evidence, or reasons for the decision. On the face of the extracted judgment, the only substantive determination is that the claimant succeeded against Respondent 2, with remedy left open for later determination.

Claims and outcomes

1 finding recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Other	The extracted judgment text is a Rule 21 judgment and does not identify the substantive cause(s) of action; it records only that the claim succeeds against Respondent 2 and that remedy will be determined at a later hearing.	Upheld	—	—

Legal tests applied

1 reference

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.