Case 1804499/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr E Temperton 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
- 1804499/2022
- Decision date
- 17 April 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge JM Wade
Parties
2 namedKey findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal first held that it was not reasonably practicable for Mr E Temperton to present his claim in time. It treated the period up to and including 24 August 2022 as a reasonable period for presentation, so the complaint could be determined.
On the merits, the tribunal found that the First Respondent failed adequately to comply with the requirement in section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. Mr Temperton's claim for a protective award under section 189 of that Act therefore succeeded.
The tribunal ordered the First Respondent to pay remuneration for a protected period of 90 days beginning on 5 April 2022, that being the date on which the first dismissal to which the complaint related took effect. It also recorded that the recoupment regulations apply.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trade union | Protective award under section 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The tribunal ordered a protected period of 90 days beginning on 5 April 2022, but the extracted text does not state a cash amount. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- not reasonably practicable
- section 188 of the Trade Union & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- section 189 of the Trade Union & 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.