Case 2204269/2020 · Employment Tribunal

Ms L Peggs and others (schedule of claimants attached) v Oasis Fashions Limited (in administration) and 1 other — 2022

Case reference: 2204269/2020
Decision date: 19 January 2022
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Hawksworth Date

Indexed: 19 May 2026

Parties

3 named

Claimant

Ms L Peggs and others (schedule of claimants attached)

Respondents

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The claimants withdrew all claims against Hilco Capital Limited and withdrew all claims against Oasis Fashions Limited except for claims for a protective award. Those withdrawn claims were dismissed under rule 52. Oasis Fashions Limited, through its administrators, did not contest the claims for a 90-day protective award.

The tribunal found that Oasis Fashions Limited proposed to make 91 redundancies at its Paul Street, London, site. It 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, that there was no proper warning or consultation, and that no employee representatives were appointed for consultation as required by section 188A.

The tribunal held that the first respondent was in breach of the section 188 duty and made a protective award under section 189 for the maximum protected period of 90 days beginning on 15 April 2020. The award was payable to each claimant listed in the schedule and the recoupment provisions applied.

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 collective consultation requirements under section 188. The award was 90 days' remuneration for each listed claimant, not expressed as a monetary sum.	Upheld	—	—
Other	All other claims against the first respondent, and all claims against the second respondent, were dismissed on withdrawal. The judgment does not identify the withdrawn claims by type.	Withdrawn	—	—

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.