Case 1805470/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Laura Ashley Ltd (In Administration) and others — 2020
- Case reference
- 1805470/2020
- Decision date
- 14 August 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Deeley
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimants listed in the schedule were employed by the Third Respondent, Premier Home Logistics Limited (in Administration). The parties accepted that they were assigned to an establishment where 20 or more redundancies were proposed by their employer within a period of 90 days, and that they were dismissed by reason of redundancy on 14 August 2020.
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 Third Respondent did not fully inform and consult with the claimants in accordance with those provisions.
By consent, the Tribunal made a protective award in favour of the scheduled claimants for a protected period of 35 days, beginning on each claimant's termination date, capped at the amount payable by the Redundancy Payments Service and subject to deductions required by law. The Consent Judgment extinguished the scheduled claims in their entirety, with no order for costs or fees.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Consent Judgment on a complaint under section 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 seeking a protective award for failure to inform and consult under sections 188 and 188A. No specific protective_award claim type is available in the locked taxonomy. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- s.188 and s.188A of the 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.