Case 1309144/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Novick and 57 others v H & H (Retail) Limited (in Voluntary Liquidation) and 1 other — 2023
- Case reference
- 1309144/2020
- Decision date
- 10 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Poynton
- Venue
- Considered
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr A Novick and 57 others
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal considered the claims on the papers under Rule 21 because the first respondent had not presented a response. The Secretary of State had made legal submissions before judgment. The tribunal found that the claimants' complaints under section 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 were well-founded.
The tribunal found that the claimants were employed at the same Shrewsbury establishment and were made redundant on or after 17 June 2020. It found that 20 or more employees at the establishment were made redundant or placed at risk of redundancy on or within 90 days of that date, and that the claimants were dismissed during the period without consultation having taken place.
The tribunal made a protective award requiring the employer to pay remuneration for a protected period beginning on 17 June 2020 and lasting 90 days. The judgment states that the Recoupment Regulations apply, but it does not specify a monetary total or individual award amounts.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The claim was a complaint under section 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 that the first respondent failed to comply with section 188 collective consultation requirements. The tribunal made a protective award for a protected period of 90 days. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 Rule 21
- section 189 Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- section 188 Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- protective awards are punitive and should be for the maximum period unless there are circumstances making it just not to do so
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.