Case 2207397/2017 · Employment Tribunal

Mr K Mills, Counsel For the v Secretary of State for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy — 2024

Case reference: 2207397/2017
Decision date: 13 November 2024
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Adkin Representations
Venue: London Central

Indexed: 19 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr K Mills, Counsel For the

Respondent

Secretary of State for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The Tribunal found that Princess Victoria (Shepherd's Bush) Limited, trading as The Princess Victoria, failed to comply with any of the requirements of sections 188 and 188A of TULRCA. The Claimants' complaints under section 189 TULRCA were therefore well-founded.

The Tribunal was satisfied from the evidence and the Claimants' counsel's representations that there were 21 employees at a single establishment, The Princess Victoria public house at 217 Uxbridge Road, Shepherd's Bush. The employees, including the listed Claimants, were dismissed for redundancy on 29 June 2017 without arrangements for election of employee representatives, without consultation, and without provision of the information required by section 188(4) TULRCA.

Having regard to Susie Radin v GMB and the total absence of consultation, the Tribunal found no mitigating circumstances. It ordered the Respondent to pay each listed Claimant a protective award equivalent to 90 days' pay, commencing on 29 June 2017.

Claims and outcomes

1 finding recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Other	Protective award complaint under section 189 TULRCA for failure to comply with sections 188 and 188A TULRCA. No specific protected award claim type exists in the locked taxonomy; this is not extracted as redundancy_pay because the judgment awards 90 days' pay as a protective award, not a statutory redundancy payment.	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.