Case 1805383/2023 · Employment Tribunal

For the Claimants in claim numbers 1808832/2023 and others: Mr Todd, barrister Claimants Miss Hood, Miss Appleyard, Mr Dacey, Miss Kiss, Mrs Janneh, Miss Burns, Miss Heslop, Mr Cutler, Mr Cooper, Mr Carron, Mr McCombie, Mr Oldland, Mr Stebbings, Mr Farrell: in person Remaining Claimants: did not attend v Mitton Aftercare Limited — 2024

Case reference: 1805383/2023
Decision date: 15 August 2024
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Cox Representation
Venue: Leeds

Indexed: 18 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

For the Claimants in claim numbers 1808832/2023 and others: Mr Todd, barrister Claimants Miss Hood, Miss Appleyard, Mr Dacey, Miss Kiss, Mrs Janneh, Miss Burns, Miss Heslop, Mr Cutler, Mr Cooper, Mr Carron, Mr McCombie, Mr Oldland, Mr Stebbings, Mr Farrell: in person Remaining Claimants: did not attend

Respondent

Mitton Aftercare Limited

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The Tribunal gave judgment at a hearing under Rule 21. It found that the complaints of failure to consult on collective redundancies brought by the Schedule 1 claimants were well-founded.

The Respondent was ordered to pay those claimants remuneration for the protected period of 90 days beginning on 4 September 2023. The judgment did not state a monetary total or allocate figures to individual claimants.

The complaints listed in Schedule 2 were dismissed as duplicates.

Claims and outcomes

2 findings recorded

This case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Other	Complaints of failure to consult on collective redundancies in Schedule 1 were found well-founded under Rule 21. The locked claim_type enum has no specific protective award or collective consultation category.	Upheld	—	—
Other	Complaints in Schedule 2 were dismissed as duplicates.	Dismissed	—	—

Legal tests applied

1 reference

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.

Open official judgment PDF on gov.uk

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.