Case 1600336/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Gareth Howells & Others (See attached schedule) v Limebright Limited (In Creditors’ Voluntary Liquidation) and 1 other — 2025
- Case reference
- 1600336/2025
- Decision date
- 16 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Jenkins
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr Gareth Howells & Others (See attached schedule)
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimants brought complaints under section 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, alleging the First Respondent had failed to comply with the consultation requirements of section 188 of the same Act. The Tribunal found the complaints well-founded.
The First Respondent was ordered to pay each individual listed in Appendix 1 — all of whom were dismissed by reason of redundancy — a payment equivalent to remuneration for a 90-day protected period beginning on 16 January 2025. The Employment Protection (Recoupment of Benefits) Regulations 1996 apply. The judgment does not record an aggregate award; the protective-award entitlement is calculated individually for each claimant.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Protective award under TULRCA 1992 s.189 — multi-claimant redundancy. Award is per-claimant (90 days' protected period from 16 January 2025) so no aggregate monetary total appears in the judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 188 Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- section 189 Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- Employment Protection (Recoupment of Benefits) Regulations 1996
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.