Case 1309764/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms N Toner (solicitor) For the v Aspray Transport Ltd (in Administration) and The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy — 2021
- Case reference
- 1309764/2020
- Decision date
- 25 February 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Perry Appearances
- Venue
- Birmingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms N Toner (solicitor) For the
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a multiple claim by former employees of Aspray Transport Ltd (in administration) under section 192 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 for unpaid protective award balances. The matter was heard by video on 17 February 2021, following an earlier consent judgment of 10 June 2020 that had been corrected on 18 July 2020. The tribunal had a revised schedule showing the balances owed after taking account of payments from the NI Fund, and there was no appearance by either respondent.
The second respondent, the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, was dismissed upon withdrawal. As to the first respondent, the judge was satisfied that the claimants were employees and that the first respondent had not paid the protective award in full. The judge therefore held the section 192 complaints well founded and entered judgment for the sums shown in the revised schedule.
The reasons note that the revised schedule reduced the sums sought for Mr Davies, Mr Frain and Mr Swann, and that the outstanding balance for Mr Swann was £1,695.17. The order required the first respondent to pay the amounts identified in the schedule by reference to each claimant's row and the 'Balance Owed' column. No order as to costs was made, and the reasons do not state a single consolidated total for the whole schedule.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trade union | Complaint under section 192 TULRCA against the first respondent was found well founded. The tribunal ordered payment of the balances set out in the revised schedule. | Upheld | — | — |
| Trade union | Complaint against the second respondent was dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.192 TULRCA
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.