Case 2203277/2020 · Employment Tribunal

Mrs E Graham v v Warehouse Fashions Limited and 2 others — 2022

Case reference: 2203277/2020
Decision date: 12 May 2022
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Hawksworth Date

Indexed: 18 May 2026

Parties

4 named

Claimant

Mrs E Graham v

Respondents

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The first respondent did not contest the claimant's claim for a protective award. The tribunal proceeded under rule 21 without a hearing and found the complaint of failure to comply with section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 well-founded.

The tribunal found that the first respondent proposed to make 91 redundancies at its Oliver's Yard site, did not fully inform and consult with the claimant, gave no proper warning or consultation, and did not elect or appoint employee representatives as required under section 188A. The claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy on 15 April 2020, and the claim was presented in time after Acas early conciliation.

The tribunal made a protective award for the maximum protected period of 90 days beginning on 15 April 2020. The claim against Deloitte LLP was struck out because Deloitte LLP was acting as administrator of the first respondent and was not the claimant's employer.

Claims and outcomes

2 findings recorded

This case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Other	Protective award claim against the first respondent for failure to comply with collective consultation requirements under section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 was found well-founded. Award was equivalent to 90 days' remuneration beginning on 15 April 2020, but no monetary amount was stated.	Upheld	—	—
Other	The claim against Deloitte LLP was struck out because the claimant was employed by the first respondent, and Deloitte LLP's actions were taken in its capacity as administrator rather than employer.	Struck out	—	—

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.