Case 1400668/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Ilangaratne of Counsel For the First v Severnprint Ltd (In Administration) and 1 other — 2024
- Case reference
- 1400668/2024
- Decision date
- 20 September 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr C Ilangaratne of Counsel For the First
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningSevernprint Limited told employees on 23 January 2024 that the business was not financially viable, and letters on 24 January 2024 said roles were at risk of redundancy. The company then elected five employee representatives, including Mr Andrew Allen, Mr Anthony Long, Ms Ellie Locke, Ms Stacey Beaver and Mr Bruce Stacey. On 31 January 2024 the proposed administrator told them that all employees were being made redundant with immediate effect, and the company later entered administration on 8 February 2024.
Employment Judge N J Roper held that the complaint under section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 was well founded. The tribunal found there was no recognised independent trade union, that the elected representatives had standing to bring the protective award claim on behalf of the workers they represented, and that the respondent did not begin consultation in good time and in any event at least 30 days before the first dismissals took effect. It therefore made a protective award for all office and shift workers at the Ashville Industrial Estate premises who were dismissed as redundant on 31 January 2024, for a protected period of 90 days beginning on that date.
The remaining claims were dismissed. The tribunal held that Mr Lewis Allen, Ms Joanne Ireland, Mr Konstantin Ivanov, Mr David Biggs, Mr Carl Steffensen, Mr John Andrews, Mr Andrew Nelson, Mr Leeroy Ellis, Mr Mark Beard, Ms Susan Holvey and Mr Danny Grant did not have standing because they were not among the elected employee representatives, and it also dismissed Mr Bruce Stanley's case as a mistaken duplicate of Mr Bruce Stacey's case.
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 | Protective award claim under section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 succeeded for the standing claimant representatives, namely cases 1400736/2024, 1401174/2024, 1401175/2024, 1401176/2024 and 1400668/2024. | Upheld | — | — |
| Other | The claims in cases 1400737/2024, 1401061/2024, 1401062/2024, 1401063/2024, 1401099/2024, 1401178/2024, 1401179/2024, 1401180/2024, 1401181/2024, 1401182/2024 and 1401183/2024 were dismissed because those claimants did not have standing to bring individual claims; case 1401177/2024 was dismissed as a mistaken duplicate of case 1400668/2024. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- section 188(1), (1A), (1B), (2), (4) and (5) TULRCA 1992
- section 195 TULRCA 1992
- Susie Radin Ltd v GMB [2004] IRLR 400
- The Bakers' Union v Clarks of Hove Ltd [1978] IRLR 366
- In re Hartlebury Printers Ltd and others (in liquidation) [1992] ICR 559
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.