Case 1803230/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs S Abbott and others (see attached schedule) v Kingstown Furniture Limited (In Administration) — 2019
- Case reference
- 1803230/2019
- Decision date
- 4 November 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Robertson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs S Abbott and others (see attached schedule)
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment was given under Rule 21. The claimants' complaints that Kingstown Furniture Limited (in administration) failed to comply with the collective consultation obligations in section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 were found to be well-founded.
The respondent was ordered under section 189(2) of the 1992 Act to pay a protective award. The award was remuneration to each claimant for a period of 90 days from 13 March 2019, and the judgment recorded that the Recoupment Regulations apply. The judgment did not state individual monetary figures or a total award.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Protective award claim for failure to comply with collective consultation obligations under section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992; no separate protective-award claim_type exists in the enum. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Rule 21
- section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- section 189(2) 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.