Cameron Stewart Claire Bennett Emma Kibblewhite John Wilks Lee Andrews Louise Thompson Lucy Burgess Matthew Simpson Monika Craig Peter Green Semra Ahmedova Sharon Reynolds Sophie Guyatt Stella Cartland Stephen Curry v The Silk Bureau Limited (in voluntary liquidation) Interested Party: Secretary of State for Business and Trade — 2025

The tribunal found that the respondent proposed to dismiss as redundant 20 or more employees at one establishment within 90 days or less, and that the claimants were among those dismissed by reason of redundancy on 17 January 2025. It further found that the respondent failed to organise the election of employee representatives and failed to consult with them in accordance with sections 188 and 188A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.

On that basis, the claimants' complaints under section 189 TULRCA were held to be well founded. Because the respondent filed no valid response and no material dispute was identified in the information confirmed by the claimants' solicitors, the judgment proceeded under rule 22 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024.

For remedy, the tribunal applied Susie Radin Ltd v GMB [1994] ICR 893 and started from the maximum protective award period of 90 days. No mitigating circumstances were put forward on behalf of the respondent, so the tribunal awarded the full 90-day protected period beginning on 17 January 2025. The judgment records that each claimant must be paid a protective award consisting of remuneration for that protected period.

The tribunal also noted that the Secretary of State for Business and Trade had filed a generic response after being given notice, but was not technically a respondent and was not an appropriate respondent at that stage because any liability to pay had not yet crystallised. The judgment states that there is no claim against the Secretary of State in the Employment Tribunals at present and that the judgment brought the proceedings to an end.