Case 1802968/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Ellis and others (see attached schedule) First v Mechanical Facilities Limited (In Administration) Second Respondent: Secretary of State for Business, Energy or Industrial Strategy HEARD : In Leeds (papers only) — 2023
- Case reference
- 1802968/2022
- Decision date
- 4 April 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge JM Wade
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Ellis and others (see attached schedule) First
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningOn 4 April 2023, Employment Judge JM Wade considered the matter on the papers and, after considering the claims and the second respondent's response, found that Mechanical Facilities Limited had failed adequately to comply with section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. No party objected to the papers hearing.
The tribunal held that each claimant listed in the schedule had a well-founded claim for a Protective Award under section 189 of the 1992 Act. It ordered the first respondent to pay remuneration for a protected period of 90 days beginning on 5 April 2022, the date on which the first of the dismissals to which the complaint related took effect. The judgment also states that the recoupment regulations apply.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Protective Award under sections 188 and 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The judgment held that each claimant listed in the schedule succeeded and ordered remuneration for a 90-day protected period, but no pound figure was stated in the extracted decision. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.188 TULRCA 1992
- s.189 TULRCA 1992
- recoupment regulations
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.