Case 2204211/2020 · Employment Tribunal

Ms A Nyamugunduru and others (schedule of claimants attached) v Warehouse Fashions Limited and 1 other — 2022

Case reference: 2204211/2020
Decision date: 19 January 2022
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Hawksworth Date

Indexed: 19 May 2026

Parties

3 named

Claimant

Ms A Nyamugunduru and others (schedule of claimants attached)

Respondents

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The claimants withdrew all claims against the second respondent and all claims against the first respondent except for claims for a protective award. Those withdrawn claims were dismissed on withdrawal under rule 52 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.

The first respondent, through its administrators, did not contest the claimants' claims for a 90-day protective award. The tribunal proceeded without a hearing under rule 21 and found that the first respondent proposed to make 91 redundancies at its Olivers Yard site.

The tribunal found that the first respondent did not fully inform and consult with the claimants 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 appointed as required by section 188A. The tribunal made a protective award for the maximum protected period of 90 days beginning on 15 April 2020, with recoupment provisions applying.

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 under section 189(3) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 for failure to comply with section 188 collective consultation requirements. The award was 90 days' remuneration for each claimant, but no monetary figures were stated.	Upheld	—	—
Other	All claims against the second respondent were dismissed on withdrawal, and all claims against the first respondent other than the protective award claims were dismissed on withdrawal. The withdrawn claims were not itemised in the judgment text.	Withdrawn	—	—

Legal tests applied

6 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.