Case 1401704/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Nicholas Buttle & 16 Others v T & G Woodware Limited (In Creditors Voluntary Redundancy) and 1 other — 2025
- Case reference
- 1401704/2024
- Decision date
- 18 June 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Midgley Representation
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr Nicholas Buttle & 16 Others
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal held that the claims for a protective award were well founded and succeeded for all claimants listed in Schedule 1. The First Respondent did not attend or have representation, and neither did the Second Respondent.
The Tribunal found it just and equitable to make an award for the maximum protected period of 90 days. It recorded the seriousness of the default, stating that the First Respondent had wholly failed to inform or consult its employees and had offered no explanation for that failure. The protected period began on 31 May 2024.
The remaining claims brought by the Schedule 1 claimants were dismissed following their withdrawal by the claimants. The judgment does not set out monetary award figures.
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 well founded and succeeded for all claimants in Schedule 1; protected period of 90 days beginning 31 May 2024. | Upheld | — | — |
| Other | The judgment states that the remaining claims of the Schedule 1 claimants were dismissed on withdrawal, but does not identify those claims in the judgment text. | Withdrawn | — | — |
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.