Case 1402185/2024 · Employment Tribunal

Mrs O Haraieva plus 10 further Claimants as per the Schedule v Hypertunnel Limited (in administration) and 1 other — 2025

Case reference: 1402185/2024
Decision date: 13 June 2025
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge J Bax Representation
Venue: Bristol

Indexed: 18 May 2026

Parties

3 named

Claimant

Mrs O Haraieva plus 10 further Claimants as per the Schedule

Respondents

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The Tribunal dismissed case numbers 1402358/2024, 1402360/2024 and 1402361/2024 on withdrawal because they were duplicate claims. The judgment records that those Claimants were maintaining their claims under separate case numbers.

The Tribunal declared well founded the complaint that Hypertunnel Limited failed to comply with a requirement of section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. It made a protective award for the Claimants listed in the Schedule, who were employees at the respondent's Viewpoint, Basingstoke premises and were dismissed as redundant on or after 1 August 2024.

The respondent was ordered to pay those employees remuneration for a protected period of 90 days beginning on 1 August 2024. No monetary award figure is stated in the judgment text supplied.

Claims and outcomes

2 findings recorded

This 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	Case numbers 1402358/2024, 1402360/2024 and 1402361/2024 were dismissed on withdrawal as duplicate claims, with those Claimants maintaining claims under separate case numbers.	Withdrawn	—	—
Other	The complaint that the Respondent failed to comply with a requirement of section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 was declared well founded. The judgment made a protective award but did not state a monetary amount.	Upheld	—	—

Legal tests applied

1 reference

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.

Open official judgment PDF on gov.uk

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.