Case 1805151/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr LE Parkinson and others v Jamie’s Italian Limited (in Administration) — 2020
- Case reference
- 1805151/2019
- Decision date
- 22 June 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Brain Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr LE Parkinson and others
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dealt with a protective award claim brought by Mr LE Parkinson and others against Jamie’s Italian Limited (In Administration). The judgment records that the parties made a joint application, agreed the terms of the judgment by consent, and that permission for the claims to proceed and lifting of the moratorium had been granted by the administrators.
The tribunal found that the Respondent had failed to adequately comply with section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, so the protective award claim under section 189 succeeded. The tribunal ordered payment of remuneration to the claimants named in the attached schedule for a protected period of 90 days beginning on 21 May 2019, which was stated to be the date on which the first of the relevant dismissals took effect.
The judgment states that the Recoupment Regulations apply. It also records that, subject to the normal categories of preferential debts in Schedule 6 to the Insolvency Act 1986, any payments made by the Respondent rather than the Secretary of State pursuant to the judgment would be paid as an unsecured dividend. No separate costs order was made, and each party was ordered to bear its own costs.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Protective award claim under sections 188 and 189 of TULRCA 1992; succeeded by consent, with a protected period of 90 days beginning on 21 May 2019. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 188 TULRCA 1992
- section 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.