Case 1301525/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Bissell v George Dyke Limited and 1 other — 2022
- Case reference
- 1301525/2021
- Decision date
- 18 February 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Woffenden
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr S Bissell
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondents failed to present a valid response on time, and Employment Judge Woffenden decided that the claim, or part of it, could properly be determined under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
The claimant was employed by the first respondent and was among about 33 employees dismissed as redundant on 29 January 2020. The first respondent went into administration on 28 January 2020. The tribunal was satisfied that it was not reasonably practicable for the claim to be presented within three months and that it was presented within a further reasonable period.
The tribunal declared well-founded the complaint that the first respondent failed to comply with section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. It made a protective award requiring the first respondent to pay the claimant remuneration for a protected period of 90 days beginning on 29 January 2020. The judgment states that the Recoupment Regulations do not apply.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The complaint was under section 189(1)(d) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 for failure to comply with section 188 collective redundancy consultation requirements. The locked taxonomy has no specific protective award or collective consultation claim type, so it is classified as other rather than redundancy_pay. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 - Rule 21
- section 189(1)(d) Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- section 188 Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- not reasonably practicable
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.