Case 2302383/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Davanzo and Others (See attached Schedule) v DCB (Kent) Limited (In Administration) and 1 other — 2023
- Case reference
- 2302383/2022
- Decision date
- 15 May 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Self
- Venue
- London South via CVP
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr A Davanzo and Others (See attached Schedule)
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal found the Claimants' complaints well founded and declared that the First Respondent failed to comply with s.188 TULRA 1992. The judgment records that no appearance was entered and no written representations were provided for the Respondents.
The First Respondent was ordered under s.189(4) TULRA 1992 to pay remuneration for a protected period of 90 days from 16 May 2022 to all Claimants listed in the attached schedule. The Tribunal stated, for the avoidance of doubt, that all listed Claimants were made redundant on that date.
Because the First Respondent was in administration, the judgment stated that the Second Respondent would be responsible for the First Respondent's liability upon insolvency, subject to the appropriate limits.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment upheld complaints for a declaration that the First Respondent failed to comply with s.188 TULRA 1992 and made a protective award under s.189(4) TULRA 1992. The award was expressed as 90 days' remuneration from 16 May 2022, not as a quantified sum. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- S.188 TULRA 1992
- S.189(4) TULRA 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.