Case 1801015/2020 · Employment Tribunal
In Person v Kingstown Furniture Limited (In Administration) — 2020
- Case reference
- 1801015/2020
- Decision date
- 27 August 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Wedderspoon Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In Person
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought a claim for a protective award under ss.188 and 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 after Kingstown Furniture Limited went into administration on 13 March 2019. He entered ACAS conciliation on 13 December 2019 and issued the claim on 2 February 2020. The tribunal found the claim had not been presented within the statutory time limit.
The claimant said he had been a driver for about 10 years, had little contact with colleagues, and was not told by the administrator that he could claim a protective award. He said he only contacted ACAS after his sister told him, at the end of 2019, about a Hull Daily Mail article referring to former employees receiving protective awards. The tribunal accepted that he had a difficult time after losing his job, including physical and mental health difficulties in the context of financial problems, but found that his health issues did not prevent him from finding out about his legal rights.
Applying s.189(5) TULRCA 1992 and authorities on the reasonably practicable time-limit test, the tribunal held that ignorance of rights had to be reasonable and that the claimant could reasonably have taken steps to find out about his rights. The claimant knew there was a Citizens Advice Bureau in Hull, had been told about government and universal credit claims, and was not deceived by the administrator. The tribunal concluded it was reasonably practicable to present the protective award claim in time, so the claim was dismissed. No remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Claim for a protective award under ss.188 and 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 dismissed as out of time. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- s.189(5) Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- reasonably practicable
- Singh v Post Office 1973 ICR 437
- Bodha Vishnudut v Hampshire Area Health Authority (1982) ICR 200
- Porter v Bandridge (1978) ICR 943
- Dedman v British Building and Engineering Appliances Limited (1974) ICR 53
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.