Case 1802075/2023 · Employment Tribunal

Ms M Sadler (1) Ms LA Mason (2) v Tolent Construction Limited “In Administration” — 2024

Case reference: 1802075/2023
Decision date: 24 April 2024
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Arullendran Date

Indexed: 18 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Ms M Sadler (1) Ms LA Mason (2)

Respondent

Tolent Construction Limited “In Administration”

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The claimants brought protective award claims after the respondent entered administration. The respondent, through its administrator, stated that it did not intend to defend the claims and gave permission for them to proceed; the Secretary of State for Business and Trade was joined as a Rule 96 party.

The Tribunal found that in February 2023 the respondent proposed to dismiss as redundant 20 or more employees at Colton House, Colton, Leeds, with the first dismissal taking effect on 13 February 2023. It found there was no proper warning or consultation with a recognised trade union, the claimants, or elected or appointed employee representatives.

The claims were held well-founded. The Tribunal made a protective award equivalent to remuneration for 90 days beginning on 13 February 2023, subject to the recoupment provisions, and entered judgment without a hearing under Rule 21.

Claims and outcomes

1 finding recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Other	Protective award claim under sections 188 and 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992; taxonomy has no specific protective award category.	Upheld	—	—

Legal tests applied

3 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.