Case 1800893/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Hill v Harvard Technology Ltd (In Administration) and 1 other — 2019
- Case reference
- 1800893/2019
- Decision date
- 18 October 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lancaster Members
- Venue
- Leeds
- Panel members
- Mr R Stead, Mr G Corbett
Parties
3 namedKey findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal held that the claim for a protective award succeeded. The First Respondent was ordered to pay the Claimant remuneration for a protected period of 90 days beginning on 10 December 2018, subject to the Employment Protection (Recoupment of Benefit) Regulations 1996.
The Claimant had been made redundant with effect from 10 May 2019 by letter from the administrators. The issue was whether the dismissal was part of a proposal to dismiss 20 or more employees within 90 days or less, where the first dismissals began on 10 December 2018 and that period had expired before the Claimant's employment ended.
Relying on evidence accepted in the linked case of Mr G Wilson, the Tribunal found that there was a single proposal to effect redundancies rather than a separate later exercise. It found that the failure to consult about the proposed collective redundancy still applied to the Claimant's dismissal, even though his dismissal was postponed until after the original 90-day period had passed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Protective award claim under section 189(3) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 for alleged failure to comply with section 188 collective redundancy consultation obligations. The locked taxonomy has no specific protective award category, so classified as other. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 189(3) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- Employment Protection (Recoupment of Benefit) Regulations 1996 regulations 6, 7 and 8
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.