Case 2301153/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr David Sturmer & Others v 1) Hurstway Construction Co Limited (in voluntary liquidation) 2) Secretary of State for Business, Innovation & Skills — 2024
- Case reference
- 2301153/2023
- Decision date
- 16 May 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tsamados
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr David Sturmer & Others
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a multiple claim by Mr David Sturmer and others against Hurstway Construction Co Ltd (in voluntary liquidation) and the Secretary of State. Each claimant pursued a protective award under sections 188-198 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 for failure to comply with collective consultation. The tribunal noted that any other claims included in some claim forms were not pursued.
The tribunal found that 23 employees were dismissed as redundant on 9 January 2023 at the first respondent's yard at Unit 11, Hawkhurst Station Business Park, Cranbrook, Kent, which it treated as the relevant establishment. There was no recognised trade union and no election or appointment of employee representatives. The evidence accepted by the tribunal was that the announcement of redundancy and closure came as a bolt out of the blue: some claimants had received a text on 8 January 2023 asking them to attend the yard the next morning, and on 9 January 2023 they were told that there was no money left, the company was ceasing trading with immediate effect, and a liquidator would be appointed.
The first respondent's response was that employees were notified as soon as practicable after a decision to cease trading and that the company was insolvent. The tribunal did not accept that account on the balance of probabilities, found no established special-circumstances defence, and held that there had been a complete failure to consult or provide the required information. It said that the absence of warning and the limited response supported an inference that the company may deliberately not have said anything until the last moment. Applying the protective award provisions and the guidance it cited, including Susie Radin Limited v GMB, it made maximum awards of 90 days' pay for each claimant.
The awards were: Mr David Sturmer £11,262.60, Mr Christopher Bourne £8,580.60, Mr Daniel French £8,962.20, Mr Richard Longstaff £7,772.40, Miss Clare Moore £13,067.10, Mrs Lisa Hogan £7,646.40, Mr Robert Fry £10,044, Mr John Beeslee £14,976.32 and Mr Chris Brown £10,044. The tribunal also noted that the protective award period began on 9 January 2023, the date of dismissal.
Claims and outcomes
9 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Mr David Sturmer. Protective award under ss.188-198 TULRCA 1992; awarded 90 days' pay. | Upheld | — | £11,263 |
| Other | Mr Christopher Bourne. Protective award under ss.188-198 TULRCA 1992; awarded 90 days' pay. | Upheld | — | £8,581 |
| Other | Mr Daniel French. Protective award under ss.188-198 TULRCA 1992; awarded 90 days' pay. | Upheld | — | £8,962 |
| Other | Mr Richard Longstaff. Protective award under ss.188-198 TULRCA 1992; awarded 90 days' pay. | Upheld | — | £7,772 |
| Other | Miss Clare Moore. Protective award under ss.188-198 TULRCA 1992; awarded 90 days' pay. | Upheld | — | £13,067 |
| Other | Mrs Lisa Hogan. Protective award under ss.188-198 TULRCA 1992; awarded 90 days' pay. | Upheld | — | £7,646 |
| Other | Mr Robert Fry. Protective award under ss.188-198 TULRCA 1992; awarded 90 days' pay. | Upheld | — | £10,044 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £92,356
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
8 references- sections 188-198 TULRCA 1992
- s.188 TULRCA 1992
- s.189 TULRCA 1992
- s.195 TULRCA 1992
- special circumstances defence
- Susie Radin Limited v GMB [2004] IRLR 400
- The Bakers' Union v Clarks of Hove Ltd [1978] IRLR 366
- In re Hartlebury Printers Ltd and others (in liquidation) [1992] ICR 559
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.