Case 1401247/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss J Cekstere v Bespoke Hotels Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 1401247/2021
- Decision date
- 17 February 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Livesey Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss J Cekstere
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent’s name was amended to Bespoke Hotels (Plymouth) Limited (in Voluntary Liquidation). The claimant, Miss J Cekstere, had been employed as a housekeeper since 13 April 2013 and was among about 56 employees dismissed as redundant on 2 February 2021 at The Duke of Cornwall Hotel in Plymouth. The respondent entered creditors voluntary liquidation on 12 February 2021. The tribunal noted that the claimant’s case arose from the same factual matrix as the claims heard by Employment Judge Matthews on 10 February 2022 and that she was entitled to the benefit of that judgment.
The tribunal found that the respondent failed to comply with section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. It held that the claimant’s protective award claim was well founded and ordered remuneration for a protected period of 90 days from 2 February 2021. The extracted text does not state the amount of remuneration.
On unfair dismissal, the tribunal found that the claimant had been unfairly dismissed because there had been no appropriate warning or consultation. However, it made no further award on that claim because the claimant had already received redundancy payment from the Insolvency Service, had received notice pay, and a fair procedure was unlikely to have made any difference to the outcome given the respondent’s insolvency, applying Polkey v AE Dayton Services [1988] ICR 142. The tribunal also made no further award in respect of the breach of contract claim relating to notice and the redundancy payment claim because those payments had already been received from the Insolvency Service.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Protective award under section 188 TULRCA 1992 was found well founded. The tribunal ordered remuneration for a protected period of 90 days from 2 February 2021, but the extracted text does not state a monetary sum. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was unfairly dismissed in the absence of any appropriate warning or consultation. It made no further award because the claimant had already received redundancy payment from the Insolvency Service, had received notice pay, and a fair procedure was unlikely to have altered the outcome in any event (Polkey). | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The reasons say the claimant had already received notice pay from the Insolvency Service, so no further award was made on the breach of contract claim relating to notice. | Other | — | — |
| Redundancy | The reasons say the claimant had already received redundancy payment from the Insolvency Service, so no further award was made on the redundancy payment claim. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- Polkey v AE Dayton Services [1988] ICR 142
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.