Case 1303187/2025 · Employment Tribunal

Mr. Christopher Adam & 49 others (see attached schedule) v Adam Carpets Limited (in administration) and 2 others — 2026

Case reference: 1303187/2025
Decision date: 27 February 2026
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Wedderspoon JUDGEMENT

Indexed: 25 April 2026

Parties

4 named

Claimant

Mr. Christopher Adam & 49 others (see attached schedule)

Respondents

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

All 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 finding recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Other	Protective award under TULRCA 1992 s.189; collective redundancy of 50 claimants at the First Respondent's site, dismissed on 20 March 2025 without consultation. Maximum 90-day protected period awarded. The First Respondent (in administration) did not file a response.	Upheld	—	—

Legal tests applied

7 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.

Open official judgment PDF on gov.uk

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.