Case 1406128/2023 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the Second Claimant Miss Elves of Counsel For the First v Lloyd Fraser Primary Logistics Ltd (In Administration) and Secretary of State for Business and Trade — 2024
- Case reference
- 1406128/2023
- Decision date
- 10 September 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the Second Claimant Miss Elves of Counsel For the First
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimants brought a claim for a protective award. The tribunal found that Lloyd Fraser Primary Logistics Ltd entered administration on 22 September 2023 and that more than 20 employees, including the two claimants, were dismissed by reason of redundancy with immediate effect at the Folly Road, Devizes premises.
The tribunal found that there was no recognised independent trade union, and that the first respondent had not recognised, elected, or appointed workplace representatives for collective bargaining, consultation, and negotiation. It found that the first respondent failed to undertake any or any adequate consultation with the claimants before dismissal.
The complaint that the first respondent failed to comply with section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 was well founded. The tribunal made a protective award requiring the first respondent to pay the two claimants remuneration for a protected period of 90 days beginning on 22 September 2023.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Protective award claim under section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992; no dedicated protective award claim type exists in the locked taxonomy. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- balance of probabilities
- 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.