Case 1400991/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr I Shilson v Bespoke Hotels Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 1400991/2021
- Decision date
- 15 February 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Matthews Representation
- Venue
- Plymouth
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr I Shilson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Ian Shilson brought a protective award claim under section 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 after the Respondent dismissed about 56 employees as redundant at The Duke of Cornwall Hotel in Plymouth on 2 February 2021. The Respondent did not attend or defend the claim. The tribunal heard evidence from Mr Shilson and considered the claim form, the Early Conciliation Certificate, a letter from employees dated 19 October 2021, and a pay slip.
The tribunal found that the Respondent was proposing to dismiss 20 or more employees at one establishment within 90 days, so section 188 applied. It found there was no evidence of any consultation at all and no evidence that the Company took any steps to provide information or consult affected employees. It also found that the Company did not recognise a trade union, had no elected or appointed employee representatives with authority for consultation, and made no arrangements to elect such representatives.
The tribunal held that the special circumstances defence did not arise because there had been no consultation. It concluded that the claim was well founded and that a protective award should be made. Applying section 189, the tribunal decided that a full protected period of 90 days' pay was just and equitable in all the circumstances because there were no mitigating circumstances.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Protective award claim under sections 188 and 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The tribunal found the claim well founded and made a 90-day protective award, but the judgment does not state a monetary figure. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 188 TULRCA
- section 189 TULRCA
- special circumstances defence
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.