Case 1600183/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Badham v Middleton Mobility Limited (in administration) — 2023
- Case reference
- 1600183/2023
- Decision date
- 12 October 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Jenkins Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr P Badham
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy a letter dated 7 September 2023, the tribunal gave Mr P Badham an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing on why the claim should not be struck out for having no reasonable prospect of success. Mr Badham responded that he was one of only two employees at the respondent's Newport shop, although he said there were about sixty employees overall across seventeen shops.
The tribunal held that the claimant could only pursue the claim if he was part of a group of twenty or more employees made redundant at one establishment. It relied on USDAW and V Ether Austin Ltd and ors [2015] ICR 675 for the proposition that 'establishment' means the unit to which the redundant employees were assigned to carry out their duties.
On that basis, the tribunal found that the collective redundancy consultation obligation was not engaged in relation to Mr Badham. It therefore concluded that the claim had no reasonable prospect of success and struck it out.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The tribunal struck out the claim after finding the claimant's representations did not show a reasonable prospect of success. It held the collective redundancy consultation obligation was not engaged because the claimant was one of only two employees at the Newport shop, and the relevant 'establishment' was that shop rather than the respondent's wider network of shops. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- USDAW and V Ether Austin Ltd and ors [2015] ICR 675
- collective redundancies: 20 or more employees at one establishment
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.