Case 1804675/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Anderson & 26 Others Wilson & 7 Others v Subscan UDS Ltd (in administration) — 2025
- Case reference
- 1804675/2025
- Decision date
- 3 April 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Bright
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Anderson & 26 Others Wilson & 7 Others
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal combined the claims listed in the Annex and issued a Rule 22 judgment. It found the claimants' complaint under section 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, concerning failure to comply with section 188 of that Act, to be well-founded.
The Tribunal ordered Subscan UDS Ltd (in administration) to pay the listed claimants a protective award of remuneration for 90 days beginning on 3 April 2025. The reasons record confirmation from the administrators that there were 20 or more employees at one establishment within the relevant 90-day period, less than 30 days' consultation was given, no recognised trade union was known, the administrators did not contest the claim, and no mitigating factors reduced the award.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Protective award complaint under section 189 TULRCA 1992 for failure to comply with section 188 collective consultation requirements; no specific protective-award claim type exists in the locked taxonomy. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- section 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- Rule 22 Judgment
- Overriding Objective
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.