Case 2204299/2020 · Employment Tribunal

Ms D Szawica v Oasis and Warehouse Limited (in administration) and 1 other — 2022

Case reference: 2204299/2020
Decision date: 19 January 2022
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Hawksworth Date

Indexed: 20 May 2026

Parties

3 named

Claimant

Ms D Szawica

Respondents

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

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 Those withdrawn claims were dismissed on withdrawal under rule 52 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.

The remaining claim concerned alleged breaches of collective consultation requirements under section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The first respondent did not contest the claim for a 90-day protective award, and judgment was issued without a hearing under rule 21.

The tribunal found that the first respondent proposed to make 43 redundancies at its Paul Street, London site, did not fully inform and consult with the claimant, gave no proper warning or consultation, and had no employee representatives elected or appointed for consultation as required. The claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy on 15 April 2020, and the tribunal awarded the maximum protected period of 90 days' remuneration from that date.

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 under section 189(3) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 for failure to comply with section 188 collective consultation requirements; award was 90 days' remuneration from 15 April 2020, but no monetary amount was stated.	Upheld	—	—
Other	The claimant withdrew all claims against the second respondent, and all claims against the first respondent except the protective award claim. The judgment does not identify those withdrawn claims individually.	Withdrawn	—	—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.