Case 1307858/2022 · Employment Tribunal
(1) Mr J Hunt-King and others (2) Mr R Fitzgerald and others (see schedules attached) v v Richmann Walsh Engineering Limited (In Administration) and 1 other — 2023
- Case reference
- 1307858/2022
- Decision date
- 10 August 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Perry JUDGMENT
- Venue
- Birmingham
Parties
3 namedClaimant
(1) Mr J Hunt-King and others (2) Mr R Fitzgerald and others (see schedules attached) v
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThese consolidated claims were determined on the papers by Employment Judge Perry at Birmingham on 10 August 2023. The judgment records that the two sets of claims had been consolidated by order of Regional Employment Judge Findlay on 4 January 2023, and that the claims were pursued with the consent of the administrator of the first respondent. The respondents had not expressly indicated that they intended to contest the claims.
The tribunal held that the first respondent failed to comply with section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 and found that complaint well founded. It therefore made a protective award in respect of all claimants listed in the attached schedules. The protected period was 90 days beginning on 20 July 2022, and the recoupment notice attached to the judgment was stated to apply to the protective awards.
The judgment does not set out any separate monetary figure for the protective award in the extracted text. It states only that the award is to each claimant for the protected period, and the annex explains the recoupment provisions that apply to protective awards. The final order then states that any remaining claims are dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The tribunal found the complaint under section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 well founded and made a protective award for all claimants listed in the schedules. The award was for the protected period of 90 days beginning on 20 July 2022. No monetary figure for the award is stated in the extracted text. | Upheld | — | — |
| Redundancy | The judgment does not separately discuss this claim type; it appears only within the final order that 'any remaining claims are dismissed'. This classification is taken from the case listing and the judgment's reference to remaining claims. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment does not separately discuss this claim type; it appears only within the final order that 'any remaining claims are dismissed'. This classification is taken from the case listing and the judgment's reference to remaining claims. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.