Case 1601780/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Edem Ekpenyong and 36 other Claimants as listed on the Schedule attached v Castleoak Care Partnerships Ltd (in liquidation) and 1 other — 2022
- Case reference
- 1601780/2021
- Decision date
- 16 August 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Howden-Evans Representation
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr Edem Ekpenyong and 36 other Claimants as listed on the Schedule attached
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal considered the pleadings and found each Claimant's complaint under section 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 well founded. The complaint concerned the First Respondent's failure to comply with the collective consultation requirements in section 188 of the 1992 Act.
The Employment Judge noted that the First Respondent accepted the Claimants, and the majority of its 69 staff, were made redundant on or around 25 October 2021. The First Respondent did not contest that the Claimants were employees at one establishment, Raglan House, or that they were affected employees for the purposes of section 189.
The First Respondent also did not contest the Claimants' assertions that there was no recognised trade union, that affected employees were not given the opportunity to elect representatives, and that there was no consultation through a recognised trade union or elected employee representatives. The Tribunal ordered the First Respondent to pay each of the 37 Claimants a protective award equivalent to remuneration for 90 days beginning on 25 October 2021.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Complaint under section 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 for failure to comply with section 188 collective consultation requirements. The judgment awarded a protective award equivalent to 90 days' remuneration but did not state a monetary amount. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- section 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- section 189(3) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- s189(1)d 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.