Case 1804939/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Debenhams Retail Limited (in Administration) — 2023
- Case reference
- 1804939/2020
- Decision date
- 3 October 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Broughton Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment concerned the claimants listed in the annex, all employed by Debenhams Retail Limited at its Leeds White Rose store. The respondent entered administration on 9 April 2020, and the claimants were dismissed by reason of redundancy on 31 May 2020.
The tribunal found that the claimants were assigned to an establishment where 20 or more redundancies were proposed within 90 days. It found that the respondent did not fully inform and consult with them in accordance with s.188 and s.188A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.
The tribunal made a protective award with a protected period of 90 days from the first dismissal on 31 May 2020. It recorded that protective award payments would rank as unsecured claims in the respondent's insolvency, with some payments potentially recoverable from the Redundancy Payments Service, and made no costs or fees order.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Protective award complaint under section 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 for failure to inform and consult under s.188 and s.188A. Any other claims intimated by the claim forms were to stand dismissed automatically after 14 days unless specified with administrator consent. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 189 Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- s.188 Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- s.188A Trade Union and 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.