Case 2204766/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Ms R Tapley v Thomas Cook and 1 other — 2021
- Case reference
- 2204766/2019
- Decision date
- 4 November 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ainscough Date
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Ms R Tapley
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal gave judgment under rule 21 because the first respondent had not presented a response and the Official Receiver confirmed that the first respondent would not contest the protective award claims. The High Court had granted permission for the claim to proceed despite the first respondent being in compulsory liquidation.
The Tribunal found that the first respondent employed over 20 employees at London Aldersgate, that the claimant worked for Thomas Cook Group PLC, and that the first respondent went into compulsory liquidation on 23 September 2019. The claimant was notified on 18 October 2019 that her employment was terminated with immediate effect.
The Tribunal found that there had been no proper warning, notice, or consultation with recognised trade unions or the claimant, and that no employee representatives had been elected or appointed for consultation under section 188A. It held that the first respondent was in breach of section 188 TULRCA 1992 and made the maximum protective award of 90 days' remuneration beginning on 23 September 2019, subject to the recoupment regulations.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trade union | The judgment upheld a complaint under section 189 TULRCA 1992 concerning failure to comply with collective consultation requirements under section 188. The award was expressed as 90 days' remuneration, not a fixed monetary sum. | 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.