Case 1800760/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v DPS Facades Ltd (In Creditors’ Voluntary Liquidation) — 2026
- Case reference
- 1800760/2025
- Decision date
- 11 February 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Elliott
- Venue
- Leeds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal recorded that the correct respondent to all claims was DPS Facades Limited, in creditors' voluntary liquidation. The Secretary of State for Business and Trade was listed as an interested party only, and the written representations of both respondents were taken into account.
The claimants' complaints under section 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 were found to be well-founded. The tribunal ordered a protective award requiring DPS Facades Limited to pay each claimant named in the employee schedule remuneration for 90 days beginning on 17 January 2025.
The judgment stated that the Recoupment Regulations apply for any claimant who claimed relevant benefits during the prescribed period. No written reasons were provided in the judgment text because reasons had been given orally at the hearing.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Protective award complaint under section 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 for failure to comply with section 188. The tribunal ordered 90 days' remuneration from 17 January 2025 for each claimant, but no monetary figure was stated. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 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.