Case 2204247/2020 · Employment Tribunal

Miss S Middleton v v Warehouse Fashions Limited and 2 others — 2022

Case reference: 2204247/2020
Decision date: 21 January 2022
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Hawksworth Date

Indexed: 18 May 2026

Parties

4 named

Claimant

Miss S Middleton 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 and found the complaint of failure to comply with section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 to be well-founded.

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 as required. It found there was no proper warning or consultation and no employee representatives were elected or appointed for consultation as required under section 188A. The tribunal made a protective award for the maximum protected period of 90 days beginning on 15 April 2020.

The tribunal also struck out the claims against Deloitte LLP after the claimant did not provide representations in response to an opportunity to explain why that claim should not be struck out. The tribunal stated that Deloitte LLP were the administrators of the first respondent and were 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. The award was remuneration for 90 days beginning on 15 April 2020, but no monetary figure was stated.	Upheld	—	—
Other	Claims against the second respondent, Deloitte LLP, were struck out because Deloitte LLP were the administrators of the first respondent and not the claimant's 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.