Mr Martin Flanagan and Others v Highlight Green Acres Limited (in administration) and 1 other — 2025

The claimants were 102 employees dismissed by Highlight Green Acres Limited after the company entered administration on 25 January 2024. On 26 January 2024 they were told at a staff meeting that they were being made compulsorily redundant. The tribunal found that the dismissals were by reason of redundancy, that there were more than 20 employees at each of the respondent's two establishments, and that all employees were assigned to one or other of those establishments.

The tribunal found that no consultation took place before the dismissals and that no attempt was made to elect employee representatives. The staff council no longer existed, there were no employee representatives in place, and the meeting at which the dismissals were announced lasted no more than 15 minutes and simply conveyed decisions already taken. The tribunal held that the claimants each had standing to bring complaints under s.189 of TULRCA and that the claims were presented in time.

On the merits, the tribunal concluded that the first respondent had failed to comply with its obligations under s.188 and s.188A TULRCA. It rejected the suggestion that there were special circumstances making compliance not reasonably practicable, noting that the respondent had provided no evidence to support its submissions and that the financial difficulties were ongoing rather than arising only immediately before the dismissals. Applying the guidance in Susie Radin Limited v GMB and Others, the tribunal said the absence of any consultation or attempt to comply meant the starting point was the maximum protective period.

The tribunal made protective awards for each claimant. It set the protected period at 90 days for each award, beginning on 26 January 2024, and found no basis to reduce that period because there was no evidence of any attempt to consult or any mitigating circumstances. The Secretary of State had been copied into the proceedings because of potential liability but did not support or resist the claims.