Case 1808257/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr N Richardson v Poundworld Retail Limited (in administration) UPON the respondent’s administrators giving consent for these claims to proceed AND UPON the parties agreeing the terms of a Consent — 2019
- Case reference
- 1808257/2018
- Decision date
- 7 November 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Robertson Date
Parties
2 namedKey findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal recorded that, with the respondent’s administrators’ consent and the parties’ agreement to the terms of a consent judgment, Mr N Richardson’s complaint under section 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 was well-founded. The complaint was that Poundworld Retail Limited had failed to comply with the collective consultation requirements in section 188 of the 1992 Act.
By way of remedy, the tribunal ordered a protective award under section 189(3) of the 1992 Act. The award required the respondent to pay remuneration to the claimant for a period of 56 days beginning on 18 June 2018. The judgment also states that the Recoupment Regulations apply.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trade union | The complaint was under section 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 that the respondent failed to comply with section 188 collective consultation requirements. The tribunal held the complaint well-founded and made a protective award for 56 days beginning on 18 June 2018. The Recoupment Regulations were said to apply. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 188 TULRCA 1992
- section 189 TULRCA 1992
- section 189(3) TULRCA 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.