Case 2205854/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Maqbool v Elevate Credit International Limited (In Administration) — 2020
- Case reference
- 2205854/2020
- Decision date
- 29 June 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Joffe
- Venue
- London Central
- Panel members
- Ms J Tombs, Mr R Baber
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Maqbool
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing on 25 March 2022 before Employment Judge Joffe, with Ms J Tombs and Mr R Baber, the tribunal dealt with the claimant’s complaints against Elevate Credit International Limited (In Administration). The respondent did not appear or have representation. The tribunal declared the claimant’s complaints under sections 188, 188A and 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 to be well founded.
The tribunal made a protective award in favour of the claimant for a protected period of 90 days beginning on 29 June 2020. The judgment states that the sums are to be calculated in accordance with section 190 of the 1992 Act. It also states that the Employment Protection (Recoupment of Jobseeker’s Allowance and Income Support) Regulations 1996 apply, including the postponement and recoupment arrangements set out in the annex to the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trade union | The tribunal held that the claimant’s complaints under sections 188, 188A and 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 were well founded and made a protective award. The protected period was 90 days beginning 29 June 2020; the sums were to be calculated under section 190. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- sections 188, 188A and 189 TULRCA 1992
- section 190 TULRCA 1992
- Employment Protection (Recoupment of Jobseeker’s Allowance and Income Support) Regulations 1996
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.