Case 1301446/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr L Arif and others (see schedule attached) v v Jupiter Marketing Limited (in Administration) and 1 other — 2025
- Case reference
- 1301446/2023
- Decision date
- 1 October 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Perry
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr L Arif and others (see schedule attached) v
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal recorded that the claimants and the first respondent had agreed the terms of judgment by consent, with the administrators granting permission for the claims to proceed and lifting the moratorium. The second respondent was given an opportunity to object and did not do so.
The Tribunal held that, in relation to the claimants named in the schedule, the first respondent failed to adequately comply with a requirement of section 188 of the Trade Union & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The claim for a protective award under section 189 succeeded, and the first respondent was ordered to pay remuneration for a protected period of 90 days beginning on 05 September 2022.
The judgment also recorded that payments made by the first respondent pursuant to the judgment would be paid as an unsecured dividend, subject to the normal categories of preferential debts, and that there was no order as to costs.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Protective award claim under sections 188 and 189 of the Trade Union & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The judgment orders remuneration for a protected period of 90 days but does not state a monetary amount. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 188 of the Trade Union & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- section 189 of the Trade Union & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
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.