Case 6048590/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr B Higgins v Liss Sport Limited — 2026
- Case reference
- 6048590/2025
- Decision date
- 9 June 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Welch REPRESENTATION
- Venue
- Leicester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr B Higgins
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal found Mr B Higgins's complaint of unfair dismissal well-founded and held that he had been unfairly dismissed by Liss Sport Limited. It awarded a basic award of £1,615.38 and a compensatory award of £4,844.38, stated to be the actual sums payable after any deductions or uplifts. The Employment Protection (Recoupment of Benefits) Regulations 1996 did not apply.
The Tribunal also found the complaint of failure to provide written reasons for dismissal well-founded and awarded two weeks' pay of £910.84. It further found that Liss Sport Limited had failed to provide Mr Higgins with payslips during his employment, but recorded no separate monetary award for that finding. Summary reasons were given orally at the hearing; the written judgment did not set out further reasoning.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £6,460 |
| Other | Failure to provide written reasons for dismissal. | Upheld | — | £911 |
| Other | Failure to provide payslips; no separate monetary award was recorded. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £7,371
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £1,615
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £4,844
- compensatory remedy recorded
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.