Case 1405821/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Biss, in person (all attended) For the v Actual Experience plc (In Administration) — 2024
- Case reference
- 1405821/2023
- Decision date
- 21 May 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Biss, in person (all attended) For the
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent, Actual Experience plc (in administration), entered administration on 7 November 2023 and dismissed its workforce as redundant on the same day. The tribunal found that the four claimants in these joined cases were among approximately 60 employees dismissed at Quay House, Ambury, Bath, and that they were told not to attend work and were not paid. The tribunal also found that the respondent did not recognise an independent trade union for collective bargaining, had not appointed employee representatives or arranged elections, and did not undertake any adequate consultation before the dismissals.
Applying section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, the Employment Judge held that the complaint that the respondent failed to comply with section 188 was well founded. The tribunal therefore made a protective award in respect of the four claimants and ordered the respondent to pay remuneration for the protected period of 90 days beginning on 7 November 2023. The extracted judgment does not quantify the monetary amount of the remuneration awarded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trade union | Protective award under s.188 TULRCA for failure to consult on collective redundancies; the judgment awards a 90-day protected period for the four claimants but does not state a quantified monetary sum in the extracted text. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.188 TULRCA
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.