Case 2200374/2020 · Employment Tribunal

Mr S Kynaston v Thomas Cook and 1 other — 2021

Case reference: 2200374/2020
Decision date: 5 November 2021
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Ainscough Date

Indexed: 18 May 2026

Parties

3 named

Claimant

Mr S Kynaston

Respondents

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The claimant claimed a protective award in respect of alleged breaches of the collective consultation requirements under the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The first respondent did not present a response, and the Official Receiver confirmed that the first respondent would not contest the protective award claims. The Tribunal issued judgment under rule 21 without a hearing.

The Tribunal found that the first respondent employed over 20 employees at London Aldersgate, that the claimant worked for Thomas Cook Group PLC, and that the first respondent went into compulsory liquidation on 23 September 2019. The claimant was notified on 22 January 2020 that his employment was terminated with immediate effect.

The Tribunal found there had been no proper warning, notice, or consultation with the recognised trade unions or the claimant, no consultation with the claimant between 23 September 2019 and 22 January 2020, and no elected or appointed employee representatives for consultation under section 188A. It held that the first respondent was in breach of section 188 and made a protective award for the maximum protected period of 90 days commencing on 23 September 2019.

Claims and outcomes

1 finding recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Other	Protective award claim under section 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 for failure to comply with section 188 collective consultation requirements. The judgment awarded remuneration for 90 days but did not state a monetary amount.	Upheld	—	—

Legal tests applied

4 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.

Open official judgment PDF on gov.uk

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.