Case 1309417/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Parker v PD Innovations Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 1309417/2022
- Decision date
- 5 October 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Childe
- Panel members
- Mrs Ellis, Mr Khan
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Parker
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a hearing by CVP on 5 October 2023 before Employment Judge Childe, sitting with Mrs Ellis and Mr Khan, the tribunal considered the claim brought by Mr S Parker against PD Innovations Limited. The judgment records that the respondent was in creditors voluntary liquidation on 31 October 2022 and that more than 20 employees were dismissed as redundant on that date.
The tribunal found that the respondent failed to comply with the requirements of section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. On that basis, the complaint was held to be well founded and the tribunal made a protective award in respect of all the claimants.
The protected period was 90 days beginning on 31 October 2022, and the respondent was ordered to pay each claimant remuneration for that period. The written judgment does not state a separate monetary total and records that the recoupment provisions apply. The note at the end of the record states that reasons were given orally and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trade union | The tribunal found the respondent failed to comply with section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 and made a protective award for a 90-day protected period beginning on 31 October 2022. The written record does not state a separate monetary figure for the award. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.188 TULR(C)A 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.