Case 1800150/2024 · Employment Tribunal
1. Mrs E Bratby & others (see attached schedule) 2. Mr T Shepherd & others (see attached schedule) 3. Mrs F Younis 4. Mrs S Arif v H.P.A.S Limited trading as Safestyle UK (in administration) — 2024
- Case reference
- 1800150/2024
- Decision date
- 8 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Robertson Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
1. Mrs E Bratby & others (see attached schedule) 2. Mr T Shepherd & others (see attached schedule) 3. Mrs F Younis 4. Mrs S Arif
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal entered judgment under Rule 21 in the linked cases listed in the schedule against H.P.A.S Limited trading as Safestyle UK (in administration). It held that the claimants' complaints that the respondent failed to comply with section 188(1) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 about consultation on proposed dismissals were well-founded.
The Tribunal made a protective award and ordered the respondent to pay remuneration to each claimant for a protected period of 90 days from 30 October 2023. The judgment states that the Recoupment Regulations apply to the award.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Protective award claim under section 188(1) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992; the judgment says the complaints were well-founded and orders remuneration for a 90-day protected period from 30 October 2023, but no separate monetary figure is stated. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013, Rule 21
- section 188(1) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- Recoupment Regulations
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.