Case 1401886/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Midas Group Ltd and Others — 2023
- Case reference
- 1401886/2022
- Decision date
- 23 June 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Livesey Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningOn 23 June 2023, Employment Judge Livesey amended Schedule 3A of the earlier judgment so that Ben Dick, together with Ian Edwards and Stephen Nicholls, was included and benefited from the award made in respect of the Second Respondent’s failure to comply with section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.
The same short judgment also amended Schedule 2A in relation to Jonathan Musselwhite, moving him from Schedule 3A so that he benefited from the award in respect of the First Respondent’s section 188 failure. The present judgment does not set out the substantive protective-award reasoning or quantify any payment; it records the amendment to the schedules only.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Protective award / collective consultation matter under section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. This short amendment judgment adds Ben Dick to Schedule 3A so that he benefits from the existing award; no monetary amount is stated here. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.