Case 1300433/2021 · Employment Tribunal
(1) Claire Ruff; (2) Rachael Hill; (3) Jessica Mason; (4) Mary Morrison- Davis; (5) Andrew Kerr; and (6) Garry McManus v STA Travel Limited (in liquidation) — 2022
- Case reference
- 1300433/2021
- Decision date
- 25 April 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Choudry
Parties
2 namedClaimant
(1) Claire Ruff; (2) Rachael Hill; (3) Jessica Mason; (4) Mary Morrison- Davis; (5) Andrew Kerr; and (6) Garry McManus
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe preliminary hearing considered whether the first four claimants had presented their protective award claims within the three-month time limit under section 189(5) of TULRCA. The parties did not dispute that the effective date of termination was 2 September 2020, so the Tribunal found the claims should have been presented by 1 December 2020, subject to any early conciliation extension.
The Tribunal considered the claim forms, early conciliation certificates, written representations and oral evidence from the four claimants. Each claimant said they had not brought the claim earlier because they were unaware of, or confused about, entitlement to a protective award and only acted after learning about colleagues' claims.
The Tribunal was not satisfied that the claimants had made sufficient effort to make themselves aware of their rights. It found it was reasonably practicable for the claims to have been presented in time, and in Mary Morrison-Davis's case also found that, even if it had not been reasonably practicable, the claim was not presented within a reasonable further period. The Tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to hear the four claims and dismissed them.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Claim was for a protective award under section 189 TULRCA. The Tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to hear the claims of Claire Ruff, Rachael Hill, Jessica Mason and Mary Morrison-Davis because they were presented outside the statutory time limit and it was reasonably practicable to present them in time. Claims by Andrew Kerr and Garry McManus were not adjudicated in this judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- section 189(5) Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- section 189(6) Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- Marks & Spencer plc v Williams-Ryan [2005] EWCA Civ 470
- reasonable practicability
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.