Case 2203674/2020 · Employment Tribunal

Claimant v Oasis Fashions Limited (in administration) — 2022

Case reference: 2203674/2020
Decision date: 3 February 2022
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Hawksworth Date

Indexed: 19 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Respondent

Oasis Fashions Limited (in administration)

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The respondent stated that it did not contest the claim for a protective award. The tribunal issued judgment under rule 21 without a hearing in respect of the protective award claim.

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 claimants as required by section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. It found there was no proper warning or consultation and that no employee representatives were elected or appointed for consultation as required under section 188A.

For the fifth claimant, Miss Penny, the tribunal made a protective award under section 189 for the maximum protected period of 90 days beginning on 15 April 2020. Her claims for unfair dismissal, notice pay and holiday pay were to be dealt with separately. The first to fourth claimants' claims were described as duplicates of earlier claim numbers in which judgment for a protective award had already been issued, and the tribunal had written separately about whether those duplicate claims should be struck out.

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 TULRCA 1992. The judgment made the protective award in favour of the fifth claimant, Miss Penny; the first to fourth claimants' claims were described as duplicates of other case numbers and were not determined in this judgment.	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.