Case 2303481/2018 · Employment Tribunal
(1) Mr Michael Hill (2) Mr John Rogers (3) Mr Lawrence White (4) Mr Gregory Howard (5) Mr Martin Denney (6) Mr Terence Smith (7) Mr C Goreham
These claims concerned a protective award under section 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The first six claimants had withdrawn their other claims on 20 January 2020. The respondent did not attend. The tribunal read the witness statements for the first six claimants and accepted their unchallenged evidence that there had been a complete lack of consultation.
On that basis, the tribunal said there was no reason why the first six claimants should not receive the maximum protective award, namely for a period of 90 days. Mr Goreham was said to be in the same position as the other claimants in respect of the lack of consultation, and the tribunal also made a protective award in his favour.
The judgment records the agreed weekly pay figures for the first six claimants for later calculation purposes: Mr Hill £369.69, Mr Rogers £482.66, Mr White £409.70, Mr Howard £468.66, Mr Denney £518.95 and Mr Smith £493.74. The tribunal did not have that information for Mr Goreham. It also held that Mr Goreham's claims other than the protective award were dismissed because he did not attend and the tribunal could not make findings in his favour on any remaining claims.
This 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 under TULRCA 1992 s.189. The tribunal awarded the maximum protected period of 90 days to each claimant. No monetary amount is set out in the judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
| Other | Mr Goreham's claims other than the protective award were dismissed. The judgment does not identify the legal categories of those remaining claims. | Dismissed | — | — |
The 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.
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.