Case 1805512/2019 · Employment Tribunal
1. Miss J Wickens 2. Ms P Allan (and others, see schedule) v Superbreak Mini-Holidays Limited (In administration) — 2020
- Case reference
- 1805512/2019
- Decision date
- 17 February 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
1. Miss J Wickens 2. Ms P Allan (and others, see schedule)
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThese were Rule 21 default judgments in case 1805512/2019 and the linked schedule cases. The administrators of Superbreak Mini-Holidays Limited consented to the proceedings continuing, and no response was filed. Employment Judge D N Jones determined the matter on the papers and sent judgment on 17 February 2020.
The tribunal declared the claim for a protective award well founded and made a protective award in favour of the named claimants and the additional claimants listed in the schedule who were dismissed as redundant by the respondent. The award was made because the respondent failed to comply with section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The protective award commenced on 1 August 2019 and was for a period of 90 days.
The judgment records that the respondent did not consult with the claimants, the GMB on behalf of any of them, or any other employee representatives about the dismissals, and did not make arrangements for the election of employee representatives. It also records that no information was provided about the dismissals and that no case was made that special circumstances made it not reasonably practicable to provide information or consult.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Protective award under sections 188 and 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The judgment makes a 90-day protected-period award commencing on 1 August 2019, but no monetary amount is stated in the extracted text. | Upheld | — | — |
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.