Case 1402665/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Mulligan v Tods Aerospace Limited (in Administration) and 1 other — 2022
- Case reference
- 1402665/2020
- Decision date
- 11 October 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gray
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr A Mulligan
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a judgment by consent following agreement as to terms of settlement. The tribunal recorded permission for the claims in the attached schedule to proceed against the respondents, and the lifting of the moratorium in relation to those claims, with administrators' consent from 12 May 2022 and approval by Employment Judge Gray on 22 June 2022.
The substantive order records that the respondent company failed to adequately comply with section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, so the protective award claim under section 189 succeeded. The parties acknowledged the establishment rule and that more than 20 employees were dismissed as redundant from the same establishment within a 90-day period. The respondent company was ordered to pay remuneration for a protected period of 56 days beginning on 3 March 2020. There was no order as to costs.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Protective award under sections 188 and 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The judgment was by consent following settlement. The extracted text orders remuneration for a protected period of 56 days, but no cash sum is stated. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.188 TULRCA 1992
- s.189 TULRCA 1992
- establishment rule
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.