Case 1305214/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr K Madeley Mr M Pickett v George Dyke Limited and 1 other — 2021
- Case reference
- 1305214/2020
- Decision date
- 1 December 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Woffenden Representation
- Venue
- Midlands West
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr K Madeley Mr M Pickett
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal recorded that the claimants were employed by the first respondent and were among about 33 employees dismissed as redundant on 29 January 2020. The first respondent had gone into administration on 28 January 2020.
Employment Judge Woffenden declared that the complaint under section 189(1)(d) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 was well-founded, on the basis that the first respondent failed to comply with a requirement of section 188 of that Act.
The tribunal made a protective award and ordered the first respondent to pay each claimant remuneration for a protected period of 90 days beginning on 29 January 2020. The judgment stated that the Recoupment Regulations apply to the first claimant and do not apply to the second claimant.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Protective award complaint under section 189(1)(d) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 alleging failure to comply with section 188 collective consultation requirements. Classified as other because the taxonomy has no specific protective award category and the judgment does not adjudicate an individual redundancy payment claim. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 189(1)(d) Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- section 188 Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
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.