Case 2301318/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss A Michna v Hallett Retail Services Limited (in liquidation) The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy — 2022
- Case reference
- 2301318/2022
- Decision date
- 24 November 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Harrington
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss A Michna
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant’s application to amend the proceedings to add the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy as Second Respondent was permitted. The tribunal then considered the claimant’s complaints under section 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 arising from an alleged failure by the first respondent to comply with section 188 of that Act.
The tribunal found those complaints well-founded. It ordered the first respondent, Hallett Retail Services Limited (in liquidation), to make a protective award under section 189(3) equivalent to remuneration for a period of 90 days beginning on 28 March 2022. The written record states that the Employment Protection (Recoupment of Jobseeker’s Allowance and Income Support) Regulations 1996 apply to the award.
The judgment record notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested. No separate monetary figure for the protective award is stated in the written record, so the award is recorded as a 90-day remuneration award rather than a fixed sum.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Protective award claim under sections 188 and 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The written record does not state a monetary sum; the award is expressed as remuneration for 90 days beginning on 28 March 2022. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.188 TULRCA 1992
- s.189 TULRCA 1992
- s.189(3) TULRCA 1992
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.