Case 1806247/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Laura Ashley Ltd (In Administration) and others — 2020
- Case reference
- 1806247/2020
- Decision date
- 31 July 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Deeley
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment by consent records that the claimants listed in the schedule were employed by the Fourth Respondent, Texplan Manufacturing Limited (in administration), and were dismissed by that respondent by reason of redundancy on 31 July 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 under sections 188 and 188A. The tribunal recorded that the claimants were assigned to an establishment where 20 or more redundancies were proposed within 90 days, and that the Fourth 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 termination date, capped at the amount payable by the Redundancy Payments Service and subject to any 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 | Judgment by Consent records 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. The locked taxonomy has no specific protective award category, so this is classified as other. | 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.