Case 2203787/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr T Rushton (Counsel) First v Respondent — 2022
- Case reference
- 2203787/2021
- Decision date
- 7 September 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Glennie
- Venue
- London Central
- Panel members
- Ms Z Darmas, Mr A Adolphus
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr T Rushton (Counsel) First
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal unanimously held that the complaints by all claimants in case numbers 2203787/2021 and 2407720/2021 that the First Respondent failed to comply with section 188(1) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 were well-founded. The judgment records that the claims were brought against Greensill Capital Management Company (UK) Limited (in liquidation) and the Secretary of State, with the claimants represented by counsel and neither respondent appearing.
The Tribunal found that all of the claimants were entitled to a protective award. It fixed the protected period as beginning on 12 March 2021 and lasting for 90 days. The written judgment in the supplied text does not state a monetary total for the award.
The Tribunal also directed that the contractual bonuses payable to Kyrrie Kleanthous were not to be taken into account when calculating her rate of remuneration for the purposes of the protective award. The individual claimants were listed in schedules annexed to the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trade union | Complaint that the First Respondent failed to comply with section 188(1) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The Tribunal held the complaints in case numbers 2203787/2021 and 2407720/2021 were well-founded and that all claimants were entitled to a protective award. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 188(1) TULRCA 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.