Case 2204581/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr T Lynch v Thomas Cook Group UK Travel Ltd (in compulsory liquidation) and 1 other — 2022
- Case reference
- 2204581/2019
- Decision date
- 10 January 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ainscough Date
Parties
3 namedKey findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment was issued under rule 21 because the first respondent did not present a response, the Official Receiver confirmed the protective award claims would not be contested, and the Secretary of State made legal submissions before judgment. The first respondent was in compulsory liquidation, and High Court permission had been granted for the claim to proceed.
The Tribunal found that the first respondent employed over 20 employees at London Aldersgate. It found there was no proper warning, notice, or consultation with recognised trade unions or with the claimant, and no employee representatives had been elected or appointed for consultation under section 188A of the 1992 Act.
The Tribunal held that the claimant's complaint under section 189 of the 1992 Act was well-founded because the first respondent breached the section 188 duty. It made a protective award for the maximum protected period of 90 days beginning on 23 September 2019, subject to the statutory recoupment provisions.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Protective award claim under section 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 for failure to comply with section 188 collective consultation requirements. Classified as other because the locked taxonomy has no protective award or collective redundancy consultation category. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Rule 21 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- section 188 Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- section 189 Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe 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.