Case 2209915/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Adam Bates and 20 others V 1st v Respondent — 2025
- Case reference
- 2209915/2023
- Decision date
- 6 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Nicolle
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr Adam Bates and 20 others V 1st
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal entered default judgment that the 1st Respondent failed to comply with its duties under section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The 21 Claimants were dismissed on 31 January 2023 without notice, warning, or consultation, and there was no recognised trade union or employee representative body.
The Tribunal found that the Claimants were employed at the 1st Respondent's head office and that there were 20 or more redundancies at a single establishment. It declared that the Respondent failed to comply with its obligations under s.188 TULRCA and awarded each Claimant a protective period of 90 days from the date of dismissal.
The judgment did not quantify individual payments. It recorded that individual entitlements would be calculated by the National Insurance Fund, with any unrecovered full entitlements ranking as unsecured claims in the administration.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trade union | Default judgment under Rule 21 for failure to comply with collective consultation duties under s.188 TULRCA; protective award stated as 90 days' gross pay for each claimant, with individual entitlements to be calculated by the National Insurance Fund. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.188 TULRCA
- s.189 TULRCA
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.