Case 1402447/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr K Stewart & 18 others v Alderley Systems Ltd (In Administration) and 1 other — 2025
- Case reference
- 1402447/2024
- Decision date
- 21 November 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cuthbert Representation
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr K Stewart & 18 others
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that all claimants' complaints under section 188(1) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 were well-founded. The complaint was that the first respondent failed to consult with appropriate representatives of affected employees. The judgment records that the first respondent was in administration and that the claimants were formerly employed at the Kingfisher House, Arnolds Field Estate, The Downs, Wickwar, Wotton Under Edge site.
The tribunal ordered a protective award to all of the claimants named in the attached schedule, each of whom was found to have standing to bring a claim. The protected period began on 24 July 2024, when the first of the dismissals took effect, and ran for 90 days. The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and therefore does not set out fuller written reasons.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trade union | Complaint by all claimants that the first respondent failed to comply with section 188(1) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 by consulting with appropriate representatives of affected employees. The tribunal ordered a protective award for the scheduled claimants. The protected period was 90 days from 24 July 2024. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.188(1) TULRCA 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.