Case 1806246/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Laura Ashley Ltd (In Administration) and others — 2020
- Case reference
- 1806246/2020
- Decision date
- 31 July 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Deeley
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe consent judgment records that the claimant was employed by the Third Respondent and was dismissed by reason of redundancy on 31 July 2020. The claimant 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 parties agreed that the claimant was 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 the claimant as required by sections 188 and 188A. The Tribunal made a protective award in the claimant's favour for a protected period of 35 days, beginning on the claimant's termination date, capped at the amount payable by the Redundancy Payments Service and subject to lawful deductions.
The judgment states that there was no order for costs or fees, that each party would bear its own costs and fees, and that the listed claims 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 | Judgment by consent for a protective award under section 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 for alleged failure to inform and consult under sections 188 and 188A; no specific monetary amount stated, only a 35-day protected period capped by RPS limits. | 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.