Case 1403769/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v WOKYKO Ltd (in Creditors’ Voluntary Liquidation) and The Secretary of State For Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy — 2023
- Case reference
- 1403769/2022
- Decision date
- 18 May 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Goraj Date
Parties
2 namedKey findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant pursued a claim for a protective award as an affected employee who had been dismissed as redundant. The first respondent had entered no response and did not attend; the second respondent, an interested party, also did not attend.
The Employment Judge found that the claimant was entitled to pursue the protective award claim under section 189(1)(d) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The tribunal held that the complaint that the first respondent failed to comply with a requirement of section 188 of the 1992 Act was well founded.
The tribunal made a protective award in respect of the claimant, who was dismissed as redundant on 24 October 2022, and ordered the first respondent to pay remuneration for the protected period of 90 days beginning on that date. No quantified monetary sum was stated in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Protective award claim under section 189(1)(d) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 for alleged failure to comply with section 188 consultation requirements. The locked taxonomy has no specific protective award category, so classified as other rather than redundancy_pay. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 189(1)(d) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- section 188 of the Trade Union and 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.