Case 1404309/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr G Ankers v Reheat International Ltd (in Administration) — 2021
- Case reference
- 1404309/2020
- Decision date
- 15 April 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Rayner Appearances
- Venue
- Southampton
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr G Ankers
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing in Southampton on 1 April 2021, before Employment Judge Rayner, the claimant appeared in person and the respondent did not attend. The tribunal considered the matter by CVP and recorded that the proceedings were held in public.
The tribunal found that Reheat International Ltd (in Administration) had failed to comply with the consultation requirements set out in section 188 TULRCA 1992. On that basis, the claimant succeeded in obtaining a protective award.
The tribunal awarded the claimant 8 weeks gross pay, assessed at £3,861.52, as a protective award within the meaning of section 189 TULRCA 1992. No other remedy was recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The tribunal found the employer had failed to comply with the consultation requirements in section 188 TULRCA 1992 and awarded the claimant 8 weeks gross pay as a protective award under section 189 TULRCA 1992. | Upheld | — | £3,862 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,862
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 188 TULRCA 1992
- section 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.