Case 1401469/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Hogan and others (see schedule) v 1) Winhall Limited (In Creditors Voluntary Liquidation) 2) The Secretary of State for Business and Trade (as an interested party) — 2026
- Case reference
- 1401469/2025
- Decision date
- 19 June 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dawson Appearances
- Venue
- Southampton
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Hogan and others (see schedule)
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningWinhall Limited did not present a response, and the Secretary of State for Business and Trade stated that it did not resist the claims. Having considered the claim form, the agenda prepared for a case management hearing and information given at the hearing, Employment Judge Dawson decided that the claims could properly be determined under rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure.
The Tribunal found the claimants’ claims that Winhall Limited failed to comply with section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 in respect of their dismissals to be well founded. Under section 189(3), it ordered Winhall Limited to pay each claimant a protective award equivalent to 90 days’ remuneration, with the protected period beginning on 14 March 2025. No fixed monetary total was stated. The Employment Protection (Recoupment of Jobseeker’s Allowance and Income Support) Regulations 1996 apply to the awards.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Claim under section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 for failure to comply with collective consultation requirements. A protective award of 90 days' remuneration was made to each claimant, but no fixed monetary amount was stated. | Upheld | — | — |
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.