Case 2206162/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A McNiven v Stena Drilling Ltd and 4 others — 2021
- Case reference
- 2206162/2020
- Decision date
- 5 May 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Norris Appearances
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
6 namedClaimant
Mr A McNiven
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was employed by the Third Respondent and assigned to the Stena Forth. The tribunal held that the vessel constituted an "establishment" for the purposes of section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.
On the facts found, the Third Respondent did not propose to dismiss as redundant 20 or more employees within a period of 90 days or less at that establishment. The tribunal therefore found that there was no obligation on the Third Respondent to consult on a collective basis under section 188(1).
The claim against the Second Respondent was dismissed on withdrawal. The claims against the First and Fourth Respondents were dismissed because they were not the claimant's employer and the tribunal considered those claims to have no reasonable prospect of success.
The remaining complaints against the Third and Fifth Respondents were left to proceed to a full hearing, and separate case management orders were made. This record does not contain any monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The tribunal found that the Third Respondent did not propose to dismiss as redundant 20 or more employees within a period of 90 days or less at the establishment where the claimant worked, so there was no obligation to consult collectively under section 188(1) TULRCA 1992. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The claim against the Second Respondent was dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Other | The claims against the First and Fourth Respondents were dismissed because they were not the claimant's employer and the tribunal said those claims had no reasonable prospect of success. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 188(1) 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.