Case 2206487/2020 · Employment Tribunal

Mr P Cooke v STA Travel Limited (in liquidation) — 2022

Case reference: 2206487/2020
Decision date: 15 July 2022
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Spencer

Indexed: 19 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr P Cooke

Respondent

STA Travel Limited (in liquidation)

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The claimant had issued two claims seeking a protective award for failure to consult in a collective redundancy situation. The first claim, case number 2206487/2020, had been accepted by London Central Employment Tribunal on 1 October 2020. A second claim was later filed at Manchester Employment Tribunal and was out of time.

The first claim had been struck out on 23 March 2022 as a duplicate claim. At a preliminary hearing concerning the second claim, it became apparent that the first claim had been filed in time, and the claimant explained that he had not responded to the strike out warning because he was engaged with the second claim and accepted that there was duplication.

Employment Judge McDonald considered it in the interests of justice to revoke the strike out judgment and allow the in-time first claim to proceed. The judgment restored the first claim and stated that the second claim would be struck out as a duplicate, with a separate judgment making a protective award to be issued separately.

Claims and outcomes

1 finding recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Other	The judgment granted reconsideration, revoked the earlier strike out of the in-time claim seeking a protective award for failure to consult in a collective redundancy situation, and restored the claim. It states that a judgment making a protective award would be issued separately, so the substantive protective award claim was not determined in this judgment.	Other	—	—

Legal tests applied

2 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.

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.