Case 2205860/2020 · Employment Tribunal

Mrs Z Phipps v v Oasis and Warehouse Limited (in administration) — 2022

Case reference: 2205860/2020
Decision date: 1 February 2022
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Hawksworth Date

Indexed: 20 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mrs Z Phipps v

Respondent

Oasis and Warehouse Limited (in administration)

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The respondent did not contest the claimant's claim for a protective award, and the tribunal issued judgment under rule 21 without a hearing. The tribunal found that the complaint was presented in time under section 189(5)(c), accepting that although the rectified claim form was outside the primary time limit, it had not been reasonably practicable to present it within that period and the claimant had acted promptly once asked to resubmit the form.

The tribunal found that the respondent proposed to make 43 redundancies at its Paul Street site and did not fully inform and consult with the claimant under section 188. It found there had been no proper warning or consultation and no employee representatives had been elected or appointed for consultation as required under section 188A.

The complaint for a protective award was well-founded. The tribunal ordered a protective award equivalent to 90 days' remuneration beginning on 15 April 2020, with the Employment Protection (Recoupment of Jobseeker's Allowance and Income Support) Regulations 1996 applying to the award.

Claims and outcomes

1 finding recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Other	Protective award claim for failure to comply with collective consultation requirements under section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. No monetary sum was specified; the award was expressed as 90 days' remuneration from 15 April 2020.	Upheld	—	—

Legal tests applied

6 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.