Case 1800714/2020 · Employment Tribunal

Miss J Agnew (and others, see schedule) v Brass Agency Limited (In Administration) — 2020

Case reference: 1800714/2020
Decision date: 17 February 2020
Jurisdiction: England & Wales

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Miss J Agnew (and others, see schedule)

Respondent

Brass Agency Limited (In Administration)

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

This was a Rule 21 judgment. The administrators of Brass Agency Limited (In Administration) gave consent to the continuation of the proceedings and said that no response would be filed. Employment Judge D N Jones issued the judgment on 17 February 2020 for Miss J Agnew and the other claimants named in the schedule.

The tribunal declared that the claim for a protective award was well founded. It made a protective award in favour of all claimants named in the schedule who were dismissed as redundant by the respondent and in respect of whom the respondent had failed to comply with the requirements of sections 188 and 188A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.

The judgment states that the protective award commenced on 28 November 2019 and is for a period of 90 days. No monetary sum is set out in the judgment.

Claims and outcomes

1 finding recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Other	Protective award for failure to comply with sections 188 and 188A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The judgment makes a 90-day protective award commencing on 28 November 2019, but does not state a monetary sum.	Upheld	—	—

Legal tests applied

2 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.