Case 1805457/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Laura Ashley Ltd (In Administration) and others — 2020
- Case reference
- 1805457/2020
- Decision date
- 21 August 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Deeley
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment was made by consent. The claimants listed in the schedule were employed by the Third Respondent and were dismissed by reason of redundancy on the termination dates set out in the schedule.
The claimants brought a complaint under section 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, seeking a protective award for failure to consult in accordance with sections 188 and 188A. The judgment records that the scheduled claimants were assigned to an establishment where 20 or more redundancies were proposed within 90 days and that the Third Respondent did not fully inform and consult with them in accordance with those provisions.
The Tribunal made a protective award in favour of the scheduled claimants for a protected period of 35 days, beginning on each claimant's individual termination date, capped at the amount payable by the Redundancy Payments Service and subject to lawful deductions. No order was made for costs or fees, and the claims in the schedule were extinguished in their entirety by the consent judgment.
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 sections 188 and 188A; the locked taxonomy has no specific protective award category. | 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.