Case 1403222/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss D Vanden-Berg (Counsel) v Fiennes Restorations Ltd (In Administration) — 2023
- Case reference
- 1403222/2023
- Decision date
- 18 December 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Smail Appearances
- Venue
- Exeter
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss D Vanden-Berg (Counsel)
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that the three claimants, who were among 25 employees dismissed for redundancy with immediate effect on 1 February 2023, had been dismissed without any prior consultation. The respondent was in administration and did not appear at the hearing. On the facts found, the tribunal concluded that the respondent failed to make arrangements for the election of employee representatives for consultation purposes and carried out no consultations with any employees.
The tribunal held that this was a breach of s.188(1B)(b)(ii) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. It therefore made a protective award under s.189 of the 1992 Act.
The protected period was fixed as 1 February 2023 to 2 May 2023. The judgment states that the claimants were entitled to a protective award of 90 days' pay, but it does not set out a monetary figure in the extracted text.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The tribunal found a breach of s.188(1B)(b)(ii) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 because the respondent made no arrangements for election of employee representatives and conducted no consultations before dismissing 25 employees for redundancy with immediate effect on 1 February 2023. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.188(1B)(b)(ii) TULRCA 1992
- s.189 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.