Case 2301496/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v MSOLD1 Ltd (in Compulsory Liquidation) and others — 2023
- Case reference
- 2301496/2023
- Decision date
- 30 October 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Fowell Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningOn 30 October 2023, Employment Judge Fowell, sitting by video at Croydon, dealt with a claim by Mr Ryan Box and 22 others arising from an alleged breach of the collective consultation duty under section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The tribunal recorded that the asset purchase agreement said to transfer the claimants from the first respondent to the third respondent had been declared void by court order on 18 November 2022, so the claimants remained employees of the first respondent. It also noted that the second respondent had been established to effect the transfer by stages but there was no record of its existence at Companies House, and that the fourth respondent had never been the claimants' employer.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Protective award claim under section 188 Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The tribunal held the complaints against the first respondent were well-founded and awarded each claimant the maximum protective award period of 90 days. Proceedings were stayed for three months pending an application to the Redundancy Payments Service. | Upheld | — | — |
| Other | The claims against the second, third and fourth respondents were dismissed. The tribunal noted that the asset purchase agreement purporting to transfer the claimants' employment was declared void on 18 November 2022, that the second respondent had no record at Companies House, and that the fourth respondent was not at any time the employer of the claimants. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 188 Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 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.