Case 2302277/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms N Lynch v K3 Business Technologies Ltd (In administration) Heard — 2022
- Case reference
- 2302277/2020
- Decision date
- 10 November 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Pritchard Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms N Lynch
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dealt with the claim under Rule 21 because the respondent had failed to present a response. It also recorded that the respondent's administrators had consented to the claim for a protective award proceeding. The claimant was Ms N Lynch and the respondent was K3 Business Technologies Ltd (In administration). The hearing was on 10 November 2022 before Employment Judge Pritchard.
The tribunal found that the claimant's complaint that the respondent acted in breach of section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 was well-founded. It therefore entered judgment for the claimant and held that she was entitled to a protective award under section 189 of that Act.
The tribunal specified that the protected period was 90 days beginning on 24 April 2020. The extracted text does not state any monetary figure for the protective award, so no amount is recorded here.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trade union | The tribunal entered judgment under Rule 21 after the respondent failed to present a response. The claimant's complaint that the respondent acted in breach of section 188 TULR(C)A 1992 was found well-founded, and the tribunal held she was entitled to a protective award under section 189 for a protected period of 90 days beginning on 24 April 2020. No monetary sum was stated in the extracted text. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- section 188 TULR(C)A 1992
- section 189 TULR(C)A 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.