Case 2302983/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms A Fadipe , Counsel For the v Fox Marketing Services MC Ltd (in administration) and Secretary of State for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy — 2021
- Case reference
- 2302983/2020
- Decision date
- 21 April 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge K Andrews Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms A Fadipe , Counsel For the
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting alone by video at London South on 21 April 2021, found that Fox Marketing Services MC Limited (in administration) had breached section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The judgment records that the claimant, Mr B Pickett, was therefore entitled to a protective award.
The award was fixed at 90 days and the sum recorded in the judgment was £7,981.20, payable forthwith. No separate breakdown of the award into basic or compensatory components was given, and no other substantive remedy was recorded in the written judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Protective award made after the tribunal found a breach of section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. Award stated as 90 days' pay. | Upheld | — | £7,981 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £7,981
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 188 of the 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.