Case 1403211/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss C Miles & 13 others v SVL Healthcare Services Limited (In Administration) and 1 other — 2025
- Case reference
- 1403211/2024
- Decision date
- 12 September 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cuthbert Representation
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Miss C Miles & 13 others
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal found that all claimants' complaints were well-founded and succeeded. The complaints concerned the first respondent's failure to comply with section 188(1) of the Trade Union & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 by consulting with appropriate representatives of affected employees.
The first respondent was ordered to pay a protective award to all claimants listed in the schedule. The Tribunal recorded that each claimant had standing to bring a claim and had formerly been employed at the first respondent's establishment at Unit 6, Waverley Road, Beeches Industrial Estate, Yate, Bristol.
The protected period began on 30 August 2024, when the first dismissals took effect, and was set at 90 days. No monetary award figure was stated in the written judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Complaints that the first respondent failed to comply with section 188(1) of the Trade Union & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 to consult with appropriate representatives of affected employees were found well-founded. The remedy was a protective award, but no monetary amount was stated. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 188(1) of the Trade Union & 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.