Case 1308610/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Respondent — 2026
- Case reference
- 1308610/2022
- Decision date
- 4 February 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sweeney Appearances
- Venue
- Newcastle
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe protective-award claims of the remaining claimants listed in the Master Schedule were well-founded. The Tribunal found that the relevant respondent employed more than 20 employees at each identified branch or site and proposed to dismiss and/or dismissed as redundant 20 or more employees at each establishment.
There were no appropriate representatives within section 188(1B)(a) or (b) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The relevant respondents failed to comply with their obligations under section 188A concerning the election of appropriate representatives and with the collective consultation obligations under section 188.
The Tribunal considered that the Liquidators' concessions in the related Valemus cases and the strike-out of the responses in these cases were sufficient for default judgment. Because the Secretary of State was an interested party, it nevertheless considered whether the claimants had established the claims and found that they had.
The protected period began on 13 June 2022. Employees of Rutherford Cancer Care Limited and Rutherford Health Plc covered by the award were awarded 85 days' remuneration, while employees of Rutherford Diagnostics Limited were awarded 75 days' remuneration. The recoupment regulations applied, and no fixed monetary total was stated. The Tribunal separately recorded that Abbey Kelsey's claim under case 1308610/2022 and the claims of eight other named claimants had been struck out.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The remaining claimants' protective-award claims under section 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 succeeded. The award was expressed as 85 or 75 days' remuneration rather than a fixed monetary amount. | Upheld | — | — |
| Other | The Tribunal recorded that the protective-award claims of Abbey Kelsey (1308610/2022), Alan Beck, Mandy de la Nougerede, Thomas Crocker, Julie Hackett, Ron Russell, Eleftherios Zabatis, Amanda Hegarty and Linda Wickens had been struck out. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- section 188 TULRCA 1992 collective consultation requirements
- section 188A TULRCA 1992 election of appropriate representatives
- section 188(1B)(a) and (b) TULRCA 1992 appropriate representatives
- section 189 TULRCA 1992 protective award
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.