Case 1602516/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Matthews v R1 AL Realisations Limited (in Administration) R2 The Secretary of State for Business Energy and Industrial Strategy CONSENT — 2021
- Case reference
- 1602516/2020
- Decision date
- 23 August 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Deeley Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Matthews
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a consent judgment in which Mr J Matthews was employed by AL Realisations Limited (in Administration). The judgment records that joint administrators were appointed on 23 March 2020, 17 April 2020, and 3 July 2020, and that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy on 31 July 2020. For the purpose of the consent judgment, the protected period began on the 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 period of 90 days, and that the respondent did not fully inform and consult with the claimant as required by those provisions.
The tribunal made a protective award in favour of the claimant 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 extracted text does not state a separate monetary sum for the award. The judgment also records that there was no order for costs or fees and that the Recoupment Regulations apply, with any recoupment notice not applying to the Secretary of State.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Protective award under s.189 TULRCA 1992 for failure to consult under s.188 and s.188A; the judgment states a protected period of 35 days capped by the RPS, but no cash sum is stated in the extracted text. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.189 TULRCA 1992
- s.188 TULRCA 1992
- s.188A 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.