Case 2300566/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Smith v Screaming Colour Limited (in administration) and 1 other — 2024
- Case reference
- 2300566/2023
- Decision date
- 17 May 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge R Russell Representation
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr J Smith
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal recorded the respondent names as Screaming Colour Limited and the Secretary of State for Business and Trade. The claimant appeared in person; neither respondent attended, with the second respondent having informed the Tribunal in advance.
The Tribunal found the complaint under section 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 well-founded, based on a failure by the First Respondent to comply with the requirements of section 188 of that Act. It made a protective award in favour of the claimant, who had been dismissed by reason of redundancy.
The First Respondent was ordered to make a payment equivalent to remuneration for a protected period of 90 days beginning on 23 January 2023. The judgment states that the Employment Protection (Recoupment of Benefits) Regulations 1996 apply.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Protective award complaint under section 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 for failure by the First Respondent to comply with section 188. The judgment orders payment equivalent to remuneration for a 90-day protected period, but gives no monetary figure. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- Employment Protection (Recoupment of Benefits) 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.