Case 1401724/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Nowakowski & 27 Ors Respondent 1: Advanced Biofuel Solutions Limited (In Creditors Voluntary Liquidation) Respondent 2: The Secretary of State for Business Energy and Industrial Strategy v Not in attendance For the Second Respondent: Not in attendance — 2026
- Case reference
- 1401724/2025
- Decision date
- 13 February 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Woodhead Appearances
- Venue
- by CVP from the Bristol
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Nowakowski & 27 Ors Respondent 1: Advanced Biofuel Solutions Limited (In Creditors Voluntary Liquidation) Respondent 2: The Secretary of State for Business Energy and Industrial Strategy
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal found that the First Respondent failed to comply with a requirement of section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The protective award claim succeeded for Claimants 1-17 and 19-26, who were employed at the Swindon establishment and dismissed as redundant on or after 16 March 2025.
The Tribunal accepted evidence that there was no recognised trade union or standing body of elected representatives, that the Protected Claimants were not given an opportunity to elect employee representatives, and that there was no consultation with appropriate representatives. It made a protective award requiring remuneration for a protected period of 90 days beginning on 16 March 2025.
Claimant 27's claim was dismissed because she provided no witness statement and the Tribunal found no evidential basis for a protective award. Claimant 18's claim was dismissed because the Tribunal was not satisfied that he worked at the Swindon establishment and there was no evidence of a proposal to dismiss 20 or more employees within 90 days at the London office.
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 under section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 succeeded for Claimants 1-17 and 19-26. | Upheld | — | — |
| Other | Protective award claims by Claimant 18 and Claimant 27 were not well founded and were dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 188 Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- section 189(5)(b) Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- balance of probabilities
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.