Case 1804455/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Aistrop and others (See attached schedule) v R1: Cross Guard Limited (in administration) R2: Secretary of State for Business & Trade — 2026
- Case reference
- 1804455/2025
- Decision date
- 1 July 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Miller
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Aistrop and others (See attached schedule)
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe first respondent did not submit a response, and the second respondent made written representations. Employment Judge Miller found well founded the complaints that the Respondent failed to comply with the requirements of Section 188A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.
A protective award was made for each of the 27 claimants listed in the schedule. Each protected period is 90 days beginning on 30 March 2025, and the recoupment regulations apply. No monetary total or component award was specified. All other claims were dismissed upon withdrawal, without their types being identified in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Protective award claim concerning failure to comply with Section 188A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992; the award was expressed as a 90-day protected period rather than a monetary amount. | Upheld | — | — |
| Other | The judgment states that all other claims were dismissed upon withdrawal but does not identify their types. | Withdrawn | — | — |
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.