Case 2205189/2020 · Employment Tribunal

Claimant v Debenhams Retail Limited (in Administration) — 2023

Case reference: 2205189/2020
Decision date: 3 January 2023
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Broughton Date

Indexed: 19 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Respondent

Debenhams Retail Limited (in Administration)

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The claimants listed in the schedule were employed by Debenhams Retail Limited (in administration) at its Chester store. The respondent entered administration on 9 April 2020, and the claimants were dismissed by reason of redundancy on or after 12 May 2021.

The claimants brought a complaint under section 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 seeking a protective award for failure to consult under sections 188 and 188A. The tribunal found that the claimants were assigned to an establishment where 20 or more redundancies were proposed within 90 days, and that the respondent did not fully inform and consult with them in accordance with those provisions.

The tribunal ordered a protected period of 90 days from 12 May 2021. It recorded that protective award payments would rank as unsecured claims in the respondent's insolvency, with some payments potentially recoverable from the Redundancy Payments Service, and made no costs or fees order.

Claims and outcomes

1 finding recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Other	Protective award complaint under section 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 for failure to inform and consult under sections 188 and 188A. The judgment set a protected period of 90 days from 12 May 2021 but did not state a monetary award.	Upheld	—	—

Legal tests applied

3 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.