Case 1805183/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Thompson Mr K R Armistead Mr J Baldus Mr T Thornton v Cardinal Shopfitting and Systems Limited (in administration) — 2021
- Case reference
- 1805183/2020
- Decision date
- 22 February 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Bright Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Thompson Mr K R Armistead Mr J Baldus Mr T Thornton
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that the claimants' complaint under section 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 was well-founded because the respondent had failed to comply with the requirements of section 188 and section 188A of the 1992 Act. The respondent, Cardinal Shopfitting and Systems Limited (in administration), did not attend the hearing.
By way of remedy, the tribunal ordered a protective award under section 189(3) of the 1992 Act. The award was expressed as remuneration for the period of 90 days beginning on 13 July 2020, and the Recoupment Regulations were stated to apply. The extracted judgment does not specify a monetary total for the award.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trade union | The tribunal found the claim under section 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 well-founded and ordered a protective award. The award was for remuneration for the period of 90 days beginning on 13 July 2020; the extracted text does not state a monetary figure. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- section 189 TULRCA 1992
- section 188 TULRCA 1992
- section 188A TULRCA 1992
- section 189(3) 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.