Case 2201388/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Wasps Holdings Ltd (In administration) — 2023
- Case reference
- 2201388/2023
- Decision date
- 21 July 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge N Joffe JUDGMENT
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent did not file an ET3 response, and the administrators indicated that they did not intend to contest the claims. Employment Judge Joffe therefore determined the claims on the papers under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013, without a hearing.
The tribunal held that the respondent wrongfully dismissed the three claimants. It also found that the respondent was in breach of section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 because affected employees were not given the opportunity to elect representatives and the respondent failed to comply with its information and consultation duties.
Compensation was awarded separately to each claimant. Ms B Cleall was awarded £903.43 for wrongful dismissal and a protective award of £3,708.79. Ms C Cooney was awarded £615.89 for wrongful dismissal and a protective award of £2,373.63. Ms L Corson was awarded £2,229.92 for wrongful dismissal and a protective award of £2,967.04. The total award was £12,798.70.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal held that the respondent wrongfully dismissed the three claimants. Damages were awarded separately to the claimants: Ms B Cleall £903.43, Ms C Cooney £615.89, and Ms L Corson £2,229.92. | Upheld | — | — |
| Trade union | The tribunal found a breach of section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 because affected employees were not given the opportunity to elect representatives and the respondent did not comply with its information and consultation duties. Protective awards for 90 days were ordered separately in the sums of £3,708.79, £2,373.63, and £2,967.04. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £12,799
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
- section 188 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.