Case 1601188/2020 · Employment Tribunal
(1) Ms GP Williams (2) Mr MS Weston v The Book People Limited (in administration) — 2020
- Case reference
- 1601188/2020
- Decision date
- 8 November 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sharp Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
(1) Ms GP Williams (2) Mr MS Weston
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a consent judgment concerning Ms GP Williams and Mr MS Weston, both employees of The Book People Limited (in administration). The judgment records that joint administrators were appointed on 16 December 2019 and that the claimants were dismissed on 10 January 2020 for reason of redundancy.
The tribunal found that the respondent did not fully inform and consult with the claimants in accordance with ss.188 and 188A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The claimants brought a complaint under s.189 seeking a protective award for that failure, and the tribunal made a protective award in their favour.
The award was for a protective period of 56 days beginning on 10 January 2020. The judgment states that any amount not paid by the Redundancy Payments Service would rank as an ordinary unsecured claim in the administration, and that the administrators would not pay the claimants directly but would provide the necessary details to the RPS to facilitate payment. The tribunal also made no order as to costs or fees, with each party to bear its own.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trade union | Protective award claim under s.189 TULRCA 1992 arising from failure to inform and consult under ss.188 and 188A. The tribunal made a protective award in favour of the employees for a protective period of 56 days beginning on 10 January 2020. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.188 TULRCA 1992
- s.188A TULRCA 1992
- s.189 TULRCA 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.