Case 2203115/2020 · Employment Tribunal

Miss N Moon v v Warehouse Fashions Limited and 1 other — 2022

Case reference: 2203115/2020
Decision date: 21 January 2022
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Hawksworth Date

Indexed: 19 May 2026

Parties

3 named

Claimant

Miss N Moon v

Respondents

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The first respondent stated that it did not contest the claimant's claim for a protective award. The tribunal issued judgment under rule 21 without a hearing in respect of that claim only, and stated that the claimant's other pay claims against the first respondent and claims against the second respondent would be determined at a later hearing.

The tribunal found that the first respondent proposed to make 91 redundancies at its Olivers Yard site and did not fully inform and consult with the claimant in accordance with 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 by section 188A.

The tribunal held that the section 188 complaint was well-founded and made a protective award under section 189 for the maximum protected period of 90 days, beginning on 15 April 2020. The recoupment regulations were stated to apply to the award.

Claims and outcomes

1 finding recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Other	Protective award claim for failure to comply with collective consultation requirements under section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The award was expressed as 90 days' remuneration from 15 April 2020, with no monetary figure stated.	Upheld	—	—

Legal tests applied

5 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.

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.