Case 2204348/2020 · Employment Tribunal

Ms J Gate v v Warehouse Fashions Limited and 2 others — 2022

Case reference: 2204348/2020
Decision date: 21 January 2022
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Hawksworth Date

Indexed: 19 May 2026

Parties

4 named

Claimant

Ms J Gate v

Respondents

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The first respondent did not contest the claimant's claim for a protective award. The tribunal issued judgment under rule 21 without a hearing and found that the first respondent had failed to comply with the collective consultation requirements under section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.

The tribunal found that the first respondent proposed to make 91 redundancies at its Olivers Yard site, that there was no proper warning or consultation with the claimant, and that no employee representatives were elected or appointed for consultation as required under section 188A. It made a protective award for the maximum protected period of 90 days beginning on 15 April 2020.

The claims against Deloitte LLP were struck out because the tribunal found the claimant had not shown why they should continue against Deloitte LLP, whose actions were taken as administrators of the first respondent rather than as the claimant's employer. The claimant's notice pay and holiday pay claims were not determined in this judgment and were to be listed separately.

Claims and outcomes

2 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Trade union	The tribunal found the complaint against the first respondent for failure to comply with section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 well-founded and made a protective award for 90 days' remuneration from 15 April 2020. No monetary amount was stated.	Upheld	—	—
Other	The claims against the second respondent, Deloitte LLP, were struck out. The tribunal recorded that Deloitte LLP's actions were taken in its capacity as administrator of the first respondent, not as 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.

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.