Case 1303187/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. Christopher Adam & 49 others (see attached schedule) v Adam Carpets Limited (in administration) — 2026
- Case reference
- 1303187/2025
- Decision date
- 27 February 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Wedderspoon JUDGEMENT
Parties
4 namedMr. Christopher Adam & 49 others (see attached schedule)
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAll 50 claimants were employed at the First Respondent's establishment and were summarily dismissed by reason of redundancy on 20 March 2025, the same day the company was placed into administration and ceased to trade. There was no recognised trade union and no employee representatives were elected. The administrators confirmed the dismissals occurred at one establishment without consultation.
The Tribunal found that the duty to consult under section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 had arisen because the First Respondent was proposing to dismiss 20 or more employees at one establishment within 90 days. There had been no consultation in good time and no meaningful consultation. No special-circumstances defence under section 189(6) had been advanced. Following the principle in Susie Radin v GMB that protective awards are punitive rather than compensatory and that the starting point is the 90-day maximum, the Tribunal ordered the First Respondent to pay each of the 50 named employees remuneration for a 90-day protected period beginning on 20 March 2025. The Recoupment Regulations apply.
Claims and outcomes
1 claim adjudicated| Claim type | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
7 referencesSource document
Primary recordThe full judgment is available 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.