Case 2303689/2018 · Employment Tribunal
(1) Mrs J Webb (2) Mr M Foster-Thomas v Ampersand Care Limited (in liquidation) Interested Party: Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy — 2020
- Case reference
- 2303689/2018
- Decision date
- 4 May 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Wright Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
(1) Mrs J Webb (2) Mr M Foster-Thomas
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimants asked for the case to be decided on written representations. The respondent had entered creditors voluntary liquidation on 19 July 2018 and did not present a response. The Secretary of State was added as an interested party and filed written submissions, also indicating that it had no objection to the case being decided on the papers.
The tribunal recorded that the claimants sought a protective award because the respondent had failed to comply with its collective consultation obligations in respect of collective redundancies. It held that the complaint that the respondent failed to comply with section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 was well founded.
Judgment was entered for the claimants. The tribunal made a protective award in respect of the claimants who were dismissed as redundant on or after 2 July 2018 and ordered the respondent to pay those employees remuneration for the protected period of 90 days beginning on 2 July 2018. The annex set out the recoupment information and payment mechanism applicable to protective awards, but the extracted text does not state a quantified monetary total.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Protective award for failure to comply with section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 in relation to collective redundancies. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.188 TULRCA 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.