Case 1401350/2023 · Employment Tribunal

(1) Mr John Tanner 1401350/2023 (2) Mr Romas Taucenskas 1401444/2023 (3) Mr Matthew Jarrett 1401462/2023 (4) Mr Ben Jarrett 1401468/2023 (5) Mrs Ewa Jarrett 1401580/2023 (6) Mrs Danulta Polkowska 1401582/2023 (7) Mrs Aneta Koscielniak 1403238/2023 (8) Mr Daniel Tessarolo 1403286/2023 (9) Mrs Asta Pavlyk 1403310/2023 (10) Mrs Bogumula Nieruchalska 1403344/2023 (11) Mrs Hannah Kinsella 1403544/2023 (12) Mr Adam Krzeszewski 1403568/2023 (13) Mrs Jadwiga Koscielniak 1405075/2023 (14) Mrs Grazyna Krzeszewska 1405109/2023 v Emagination Holdings Ltd (In Creditors Voluntary Liquidation) and 1 other — 2024

Case reference: 1401350/2023
Decision date: 16 January 2024
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Midgley Representation

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

3 named

Claimant

(1) Mr John Tanner 1401350/2023 (2) Mr Romas Taucenskas 1401444/2023 (3) Mr Matthew Jarrett 1401462/2023 (4) Mr Ben Jarrett 1401468/2023 (5) Mrs Ewa Jarrett 1401580/2023 (6) Mrs Danulta Polkowska 1401582/2023 (7) Mrs Aneta Koscielniak 1403238/2023 (8) Mr Daniel Tessarolo 1403286/2023 (9) Mrs Asta Pavlyk 1403310/2023 (10) Mrs Bogumula Nieruchalska 1403344/2023 (11) Mrs Hannah Kinsella 1403544/2023 (12) Mr Adam Krzeszewski 1403568/2023 (13) Mrs Jadwiga Koscielniak 1405075/2023 (14) Mrs Grazyna Krzeszewska 1405109/2023

Respondents

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The tribunal heard the claims at Bristol by video on 1 December 2023 and received evidence from the claimants together with schedules of loss. The first respondent was represented by its HR Business Manager; there was no attendance or representation for the second respondent.

The tribunal found that the claims by all claimants that the first respondent failed to consult in relation to the intended redundancies, contrary to s.188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, were well founded and succeeded. No separate monetary sum was recorded in the judgment text.

It was held to be just and equitable to make a protective award in respect of each claimant for 90 days' pay.

Claims and outcomes

1 finding recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Other	All claimants succeeded on their claims that the first respondent failed to consult in relation to the intended redundancies contrary to s.188 TULR(C)A 1992. The tribunal made a protective award of 90 days' pay for each claimant.	Upheld	—	—

Legal tests applied

2 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.