Case 2300831/2023 · Employment Tribunal

Mr M Michalak v SC Realisations 2023 Limited (In Administration) — 2024

Case reference: 2300831/2023
Decision date: 11 March 2024
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge G. King Representation

Indexed: 18 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr M Michalak

Respondent

SC Realisations 2023 Limited (In Administration)

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The claimant claimed a protective award for breach of the collective consultation requirements. The respondent did not present a response and did not attend the hearing.

The tribunal found that the respondent entered administration on 23 January 2023, that the claimant was dismissed with immediate effect on that date along with other employees, and that no information, warning, notice or consultation was provided in advance. It found that approximately 58 employees were employed at the establishment and more than 20 were dismissed on or around the same date.

The tribunal held that the respondent breached section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 and made a protective award for the maximum protected period of 90 days from 23 January 2023. It stated that this judgment did not quantify a financial award at this stage.

Claims and outcomes

1 finding recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Trade union	Protective award for breach of collective consultation requirements under section 188 TULRCA 1992. The tribunal stated that no financial award was made at this stage and that the claimant must quantify the individual award separately.	Upheld	—	—

Legal tests applied

5 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.