Case 1308944/2022 · Employment Tribunal
(1) Mr A Derbyshire (2) Mr E Kapsalos (3) Ms G Leese (4) Ms J Astbury (5) Ms J Adeniji (6) Ms K Kirby (7) Mr M Pugh (8) Mr M Bridgewood (9) Mr R Exton (10) Mr RA Jebson v Tree of Life UK Limited (In Administration) — 2022
- Case reference
- 1308944/2022
- Decision date
- 8 November 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dimbylow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
(1) Mr A Derbyshire (2) Mr E Kapsalos (3) Ms G Leese (4) Ms J Astbury (5) Ms J Adeniji (6) Ms K Kirby (7) Mr M Pugh (8) Mr M Bridgewood (9) Mr R Exton (10) Mr RA Jebson
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claims were issued on 8 November 2022. The respondent's administrators consented to the proceedings on 9 February 2023, and the respondent did not present a valid response on time. Employment Judge Dimbylow decided that the claims could be determined under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
The tribunal found that the complaint that the respondent failed to comply with section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 was well-founded. It recorded that more than 20 employees were made redundant by the respondent within a 90-day period at one establishment.
A protective award was made for all employees at the respondent's Lymedale Business Park premises who were dismissed as redundant on 23 August 2022. The respondent was ordered to pay remuneration for a protected period of 90 days beginning on 23 August 2022, with each employee entitled to 90 days irrespective of their termination date.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trade union | Rule 21 judgment on failure to comply with section 188 TULRCA 1992 collective consultation requirements; no fixed monetary figure is stated. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 21 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- 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.