Case 1804490/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Shackle v R1 AL Realization Limited (in Administration) R2 Laura Ashley Limited (In Administration) R3 The Secretary of State for Business Energy and Industrial Strategy CONSENT — 2021
- Case reference
- 1804490/2020
- Decision date
- 4 October 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Deeley Date
Parties
2 namedKey findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a consent judgment in which the claimant, Mr R Shackle, pursued a complaint under section 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 seeking a protective award for failure to consult. The judgment records that he was dismissed by reason of redundancy on 22 May 2020 and that the First and Second Respondents were in administration. It also records that the First and Second Respondents had not fully informed and consulted with the claimant in accordance with sections 188 and 188A.
The parties accepted that the claimant was assigned to an establishment where 20 or more redundancies were proposed within a 90-day period. By consent, the Tribunal made a protective award in favour of the claimant for a protected period of 42 days. The judgment states that the award was capped at the amount payable by the Redundancy Payments Service, in accordance with its regulations and limits, and subject to any deductions required by law. The Schedule states that the claims listed there were extinguished in their entirety by the consent judgment. No costs order was made, and the parties were to bear their own costs and fees.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Consent judgment on a section 189 TULRCA 1992 complaint seeking a protective award for failure to inform and consult under sections 188 and 188A. The judgment makes a protective award for a protected period of 42 days, capped at the amount payable by the Redundancy Payments Service and subject to any deductions required by law. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.188 TULRCA 1992
- s.188A 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.