Case 1804624/2025 · Employment Tribunal
(1) Mr M Brooke (2) Miss V Batty (3) Mr JP Sewell (4) Mr A Smith v Range Cylinders Ltd (In administration) Interested party: Secretary of State for Business and Trade Heard in Leeds Employment Tribunal — 2026
- Case reference
- 1804624/2025
- Decision date
- 11 February 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Bridge
Parties
2 namedClaimant
(1) Mr M Brooke (2) Miss V Batty (3) Mr JP Sewell (4) Mr A Smith
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Range Cylinders Ltd, in administration, failed to consult with employee representatives contrary to sections 188 and 188A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The claim for a protective award therefore succeeded.
The respondent was ordered to pay remuneration to each claimant for a protected period of 90 days beginning on 17 June 2025. The judgment also records that claimant 1's claims for breach of contract and unpaid holiday pay were dismissed on withdrawal.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trade union | The judgment states that the respondent failed to consult with employee representatives contrary to sections 188 and 188A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, and that the claim for a protective award succeeds. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Claimant 1's claim for breach of contract was dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Claimant 1's claim for unpaid holiday pay was dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- sections 188 and 188A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- Employment Protection (Recoupment of Benefits) Regulations 1996
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.