Case 1806644/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr T Barwell, Mr R Barwell, Mr G Hannam, Mr R Kirwin For the v Hamon UK Ltd (in administration) and Secretary of State for Business and Trade — 2024
- Case reference
- 1806644/2023
- Decision date
- 5 November 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Davies Appearances
- Venue
- Leeds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr T Barwell, Mr R Barwell, Mr G Hannam, Mr R Kirwin For the
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that it was not reasonably practicable for Mr R Barwell, Mr G Hannam and Mr R Kirwin to present their claims within the time limit in s.189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, and that they had presented their claims within a reasonable period. It therefore had jurisdiction to deal with their claims together with the wider group of former Hamon UK Ltd employees.
It declared that the complaints of failure to consult in respect of proposed dismissals, brought contrary to s.188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 by the twenty-one former employees of Hamon UK Ltd, were well-founded. The respondent was ordered to pay remuneration for a protected period of 90 days from 18 September 2023. The judgment does not set out a separate monetary sum in pounds.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Protective award / failure to consult under s.188 TULRCA 1992 in respect of proposed dismissals. The tribunal also held that it was not reasonably practicable for Mr R Barwell, Mr G Hannam and Mr R Kirwin to present their claims within the time limit in s.189 and that they did so within a reasonable period. No separate cash figure was stated for this claim. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.189 TULRCA 1992 reasonable practicability test
- s.188 TULRCA 1992 collective consultation duty
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.