Case 1602503/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs K Hughes v R1 AL Realisations Limited (in Administration) R2 The Secretary of State for Business Energy and Industrial Strategy CONSENT — 2021
- Case reference
- 1602503/2020
- Decision date
- 23 August 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Deeley Date
Parties
2 namedKey findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a consent judgment. The claimant, Mrs K Hughes, was employed by AL Realisations Limited (in Administration). The judgment records that the first respondent was placed into administration on 23 March 2020, with further administrators appointed on 17 April 2020 and 3 July 2020. It also records that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy on 9 October 2020, and that the protected period for the purposes of the claim began on that termination date.
The claimant brought a complaint under section 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 seeking a protective award for failure to consult under sections 188 and 188A. The tribunal recorded that the claimant was assigned to an establishment where 20 or more redundancies were proposed within a 90-day period, and that the respondent did not fully inform and consult with the claimant in accordance with the statutory provisions. The tribunal therefore made a protective award in the claimant's favour for a protected period of 35 days, capped at the amount payable by the Redundancy Payments Service and subject to any deductions required by law.
The judgment states that there was no order for costs or fees, and that each party was to bear its own costs and fees. It also records that the Recoupment Regulations apply to the judgment, with no recoupment notice applying to the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Protective award claim under section 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 for failure to consult in accordance with sections 188 and 188A. | 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.