Case 1801773/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr W Cunningham Ms G Fawcett Mr D Scott v Betterbathrooms (UK) Ltd (In Administration) — 2019
- Case reference
- 1801773/2019
- Decision date
- 18 December 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dr
- Venue
- Leeds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr W Cunningham Ms G Fawcett Mr D Scott
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt Leeds on 18 December 2019, Employment Judge Dr E Morgan determined claims brought by Mr W Cunningham, Ms G Fawcett and Mr D Scott against Betterbathrooms (UK) Ltd (in Administration). The judgment records no appearance for the respondent and records that Mr Cunningham appeared in person, while Ms Fawcett and Mr Scott did not appear.
The tribunal dismissed the claim advanced by Mr Cunningham and Ms Fawcett for a protective award pursuant to section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. It also dismissed all claims advanced by Mr Scott. No monetary award or other remedy is recorded in the extracted judgment text.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment records that Mr Cunningham and Ms Fawcett advanced a claim for a protective award and that it was dismissed. The extracted text does not set out any separate monetary award or further breakdown for this claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The judgment states that all claims advanced by Mr Scott were dismissed, but the extracted text does not identify the individual claim types. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- 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.