Case 2202545/2020 · Employment Tribunal

Miss C Leigh v v Oasis Fashions Limited (in administration) — 2022

Case reference: 2202545/2020
Decision date: 1 February 2022
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Hawksworth Case

Indexed: 19 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Miss C Leigh v

Respondent

Oasis Fashions Limited (in administration)

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The respondent stated that it did not contest the claimant's claim for a protective award, and did not make representations that the protected period should be less than 90 days. The tribunal issued judgment under rule 21 without a hearing.

The tribunal found that the respondent proposed to make 91 redundancies at its Paul Street London site and did not fully inform and consult with the claimant under section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. It found there was no proper warning or consultation and no employee representatives were elected or appointed for consultation as required under section 188A.

The complaint was found well-founded. The tribunal ordered a protective award under section 189(3), equivalent to remuneration for 90 days beginning on 15 April 2020, with the recoupment regulations applying. No specific monetary amount was stated in the judgment.

Claims and outcomes

1 finding recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Other	Claim was for a protective award for failure to comply with collective consultation requirements under section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The locked taxonomy has no specific protective award category, so classified as other rather than redundancy_pay.	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.