Case 1803576/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Richard West and others (see attached schedule) First v Dapatchi Construction Limited (In Administration) Second Respondent: The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy PRELIMINARY HEARING Heard: On paper — 2021
- Case reference
- 1803576/2021
- Decision date
- 19 November 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge JM Wade
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Richard West and others (see attached schedule) First
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment heard on the papers on 19 November 2021 before Employment Judge JM Wade. The first respondent, Dapatchi Construction Limited (In Administration), had failed adequately to comply with section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.
The tribunal held that each claimant listed in the attached schedule had a well-founded claim for a protective award under section 189 of the 1992 Act. Those claims succeeded. The judgment records that the first of the dismissals to which the complaint related took effect on 31 March 2021.
The tribunal ordered the first respondent to pay remuneration for a protected period of 90 days beginning on 31 March 2021 to each claimant in the schedule. The recoupment regulations apply. The extracted judgment does not set out any single monetary total or individual figure for the awards.
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 orders remuneration for a protected period of 90 days beginning on 31 March 2021, but the extracted text does not state a monetary figure. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.188 TULRCA 1992
- s.189 TULRCA 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.