Case 1800428/2020 · Employment Tribunal

Mr G Watson and others (see attached schedule) v Marcus Worthington And Company Limited (in Administration) and 1 other — 2020

Case reference: 1800428/2020
Decision date: 9 October 2020
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Batten Dated

Indexed: 19 May 2026

Parties

3 named

Claimant

Mr G Watson and others (see attached schedule)

Respondents

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The Tribunal gave judgment under Rule 21. It found the claimants' complaint under section 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 well-founded, namely that the first respondent had failed to comply with the requirements of section 188 of the 1992 Act.

The Tribunal ordered the first respondent to pay a protective award to all employees listed in the attached schedule. The award was equivalent to remuneration for 90 days beginning on 9 October 2019, and the Recoupment Regulations apply.

All other claims brought by the claimants were dismissed on withdrawal. The judgment does not set out monetary totals or a per-claimant calculation of the protective award.

Claims and outcomes

2 findings recorded

This case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Other	Complaint under section 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 that the first respondent failed to comply with section 188; protective award ordered for listed employees.	Upheld	—	—
Other	The judgment states that all other claims brought by the claimants are dismissed on withdrawal, but does not identify those claims in the judgment text.	Withdrawn	—	—

Legal tests applied

3 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.

Open official judgment PDF on gov.uk

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.