Case 1404186/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Wilkins & 17 others v W Stirland Limited (In Administration) and 1 other — 2024
- Case reference
- 1404186/2022
- Decision date
- 19 January 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cuthbert Representation
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr M Wilkins & 17 others
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal found that all claimants' complaints that the first respondent failed to comply with section 188(1) of the Trade Union & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 were well-founded and succeeded.
The first respondent was ordered to pay a protective award to all claimants listed in the schedule, who had formerly been employed at its premises at Redmoor Estate, Birdham, West Sussex. The protected period began on 14 September 2022, when the first dismissals took effect, and was set at 90 days.
The judgment states that reasons were given orally at the hearing. No monetary figure for the protective award is stated in the written judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trade union | The judgment records complaints under section 188(1) of the Trade Union & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 and orders a protective award. The locked taxonomy has no specific protective award / collective consultation category, so this is classified as trade_union_related. | 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.