Case 1401876/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Midas Group Ltd and Others — 2022
- Case reference
- 1401876/2022
- Decision date
- 30 November 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Livesey Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal found that the First Respondent failed to comply with section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 in respect of employees at its Bristol and Newton Abbot premises listed in Schedule 2A of the Response who were dismissed as redundant on or after 8 February 2022. It ordered those employees remuneration for the protected period of 90 days beginning on 8 February 2022.
The Tribunal made the same kind of finding against the Second Respondent in relation to the employees listed in Schedule 3A of the Response, save for claim No. 1401905/2022 but including claims 1301810/2022 and 1301771/2022, who were dismissed as redundant on or after 8 February 2022. It again ordered remuneration for the 90-day protected period beginning on 8 February 2022.
The judgment also recorded a number of claims dismissed upon withdrawal, including all claims against the Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Seventh Respondents, the s.188 complaint within Mr Testro's claim No. 1401418/2022, Ms Baleson's claim No. 1401877/2022, Mr Jamieson's claim No. 1401901/2022, Mr Paul Nicholls' claim No. 1401904/2022, and Ms Stradling's claim No. 1301762/2022. Mr Selwyn's claims of unfair dismissal, unlawful deductions from wages, unpaid holiday pay and breach of contract, and Mr King's claims of breach of contract and unlawful deductions from wages, were also dismissed upon withdrawal.
Mr Testro's claim No. 1401418/2022 against the Third Respondent, Mi-Space (UK) Ltd, was stayed unless or until the Claimant obtained consent from the Joint Administrators or an order of the court to allow it to proceed. The judgment does not specify any monetary figure for the protective awards, only that remuneration is payable for the protected period.
Claims and outcomes
14 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trade union | Section 188 TULR(C)A 1992 complaint against the First Respondent was well founded in respect of employees at its Bristol and Newton Abbot premises listed in Schedule 2A of the Response who were dismissed as redundant on or after 8 February 2022. The Tribunal ordered remuneration for the 90-day protected period beginning on 8 February 2022. | Upheld | — | — |
| Trade union | Section 188 TULR(C)A 1992 complaint against the Second Respondent was well founded in respect of employees listed in Schedule 3A of the Response, save for claim No. 1401905/2022 but including claims 1301810/2022 and 1301771/2022, who were dismissed as redundant on or after 8 February 2022. The Tribunal ordered remuneration for the 90-day protected period beginning on 8 February 2022. | Upheld | — | — |
| Trade union | Mr Testro's complaint under s.188 TULR(C)A 1992 within claim No. 1401418/2022 was dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Other | Mr Testro's claim No. 1401418/2022 against the Third Respondent (Mi-Space (UK) Ltd) was stayed unless and until the Claimant obtains consent from the Joint Administrators or an order of the court to allow it to proceed. | Other | — | — |
| Other | Ms Baleson's claim (No. 1401877/2022) was dismissed upon withdrawal; the judgment does not specify the underlying claim type. |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.188 TULR(C)A 1992
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.