Case 1600473/2023 · Employment Tribunal
(1) Mr G Douglas and others (see Appendix 1) v Garth Bakery Ltd – in Administration and 1 other — 2024
- Case reference
- 1600473/2023
- Decision date
- 17 January 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge C Sharp
Parties
3 namedClaimant
(1) Mr G Douglas and others (see Appendix 1)
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal sat as Employment Judge C Sharp alone. The respondents did not attend. The claim by Kacey Lyons under case number 1600517/23 was dismissed because the tribunal found they had not shown standing to bring claims as an employee of the respondent as at 8 November 2022.
The tribunal found the complaint that Garth Bakery Ltd failed to comply with a requirement of section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 was well founded. It made a protective award for employees at the single establishment at Pontcynon Industrial Estate who were dismissed as redundant on or after 8 November 2022, including the affected employees listed in Appendix 1.
The respondent was ordered to pay those employees remuneration for a protected period of 90 days beginning on 8 November 2022. The judgment states that the Recoupment Regulations apply and that it does not prevent a claim to the Secretary of State for payment from the National Insurance Fund in respect of the respondent's liability.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trade union | Complaint that the respondent failed to comply with a requirement of section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 was found well founded. The remedy was a protective award of 90 days' remuneration for affected employees, not a fixed monetary sum in the judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- 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.