Case 1305785/2023 · Employment Tribunal

Ms Chloe Bagley and others First v Cross Transport Ltd (in administration) Second Respondent: The Secretary of State for Business Energy and Industrial Strategy — 2025

Case reference: 1305785/2023
Decision date: 8 January 2025
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Battisby
Venue: Birmingham

Indexed: 18 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Ms Chloe Bagley and others First

Respondent

Cross Transport Ltd (in administration) Second Respondent: The Secretary of State for Business Energy and Industrial Strategy

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The tribunal found that the claimants had standing to bring the protective award claim because there was no recognised trade union or elected employee representatives. Cross Transport Ltd had 55 employees when it ceased trading on 2 June 2023, and the Joint Administrators notified employees on 8 June 2023 that their employment had been terminated by reason of redundancy with immediate effect.

The tribunal found a complete absence of consultation before dismissal and no steps taken to arrange election of employee representatives. No special circumstances or other basis was put forward that would justify reducing the award.

The complaint under sections 188 and 188A of TULR(C)A 1992 was well-founded. The tribunal made a protective award for the 14 claimants of 90 days' remuneration from 8 June 2023, with the award not quantified in monetary terms in the judgment.

Claims and outcomes

1 finding recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Other	Protective award complaint under sections 188 and 188A TULR(C)A 1992 for failure to comply with collective consultation requirements. The judgment states other claims had already been dismissed on withdrawal by judgments dated 11 June 2024, but does not identify those claim types.	Upheld	—	—

Legal tests applied

5 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.