Case 1802050/2022 · Employment Tribunal

Mr C Penistone and others (see attached schedule) v Mechanical Facilities Limited (In Administration) — 2022

Case reference: 1802050/2022
Decision date: 5 September 2022
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge JM Wade

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr C Penistone and others (see attached schedule)

Respondent

Mechanical Facilities Limited (In Administration)

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

This was a Rule 21 judgment in favour of the claimants listed in the schedule. The tribunal found that the respondent failed adequately to comply with the section 188 consultation requirement of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, and that each listed claimant's claim for a protective award under section 189 was well founded and succeeded.

The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay remuneration for a protected period of 90 days for each claimant, beginning on 5 April 2022, which was the date on which the first dismissal to which the complaint related took effect. The judgment also records that the recoupment regulations apply. The extracted text does not state any separate per-claim monetary figures or an aggregate total award.

Claims and outcomes

1 finding recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Trade union	Protective award claim under sections 188 and 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The judgment does not state a split monetary amount for the claim.	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.