Case 2227159/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Emma Shaw and Others v Armstrong Teasdale Limited (In Administration) and 1 other — 2025
- Case reference
- 2227159/2024
- Decision date
- 3 October 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Freer
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Ms Emma Shaw and Others
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal found that the complaints brought under section 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 were well-founded. The Respondents had not presented a response, and the administrators confirmed that the claims were not being contested. The Tribunal therefore made a protective award in favour of the Claimants.
The Tribunal found a complete failure to comply with section 188 of TULRCA. The Respondents employed about 57 people at a single establishment in Lincoln's Inn Fields, London, there was no recognised trade union or elected representatives, and the Claimants were not consulted about the proposed redundancies. The Tribunal found there was no consultation, no attempt to elect appropriate representatives, and no written disclosure of the information required by section 188(4).
The Tribunal recorded that the London office had been reported as closing on 5 July 2024, and that on 12 September 2024 the employees were told they would be dismissed by reason of redundancy the next day, save for a few minor exceptions including Molly Ahmed. It found that no special circumstances were established, noting that the poor financial position was known in advance and that there had been an opportunity for consultation but none occurred.
The protective award was made for the maximum period of 90 days, beginning on 13 September 2024 for the Claimants other than Molly Ahmed and on 26 September 2024 for Molly Ahmed. The Tribunal also stated that the Employment Protection (Recoupment of Jobseeker's Allowance and Income Support) Regulations 1996 apply to the award.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Protective award claim under section 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 for failure to comply with section 188; no specific monetary amount is stated in the judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- section 188(1A) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- section 188(2) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- section 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- special circumstances
- Employment Protection (Recoupment of Jobseeker's Allowance and Income Support) Regulations 1996
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.