Case 2302996/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Ms S Satti and Others v Loot Financial Services Ltd c/o Smith and Williamson LLP — 2020
- Case reference
- 2302996/2019
- Decision date
- 31 January 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Wright Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms S Satti and Others
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment was entered by consent. It recorded that the claimants in the attached schedule were employed by the respondent and were dismissed by reason of redundancy on 22 May 2019, the same date on which Henry Anthony Shinners and Adam Henry Stephens of Smith and Williamson LLP were appointed joint administrators of the respondent.
The Tribunal found that the respondent had not informed and consulted the claimants in accordance with sections 188 and 188A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The claimants had brought a complaint under section 189 seeking a protective award, and the Tribunal declared those claims well-founded.
The Tribunal made a protective award in favour of the claimants and ordered the respondent to pay remuneration for a protected period of 8 weeks beginning on 8 May 2019. It made no order against the administrators.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Protective award claim under sections 188, 188A and 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The judgment orders remuneration for a protected period of 8 weeks from 8 May 2019 but does not state a monetary amount. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- section 188A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- section 189 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.