Case 2304817/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms I Horner v Byron Hamburgers Ltd (in Administration) and 1 other — 2022
- Case reference
- 2304817/2020
- Decision date
- 12 October 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge A.M.S. Green
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Ms I Horner
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that the claimant's application for a protective award under section 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 was well founded. The claimant had been dismissed as redundant on 31 July 2020.
The first respondent was ordered to pay remuneration calculated under section 190 of the 1992 Act for a protected period of 90 days, running from 31 July 2020 to 29 October 2020. The judgment stated that the award related only to the claimant.
The tribunal recorded that the Employment Protection (Recoupment of Benefits) Regulations 1996 applied. It also stated that the second respondent ought to pay the claimant such amount of the protective award as falls within the statutory guarantee provisions in Part XII of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Application for a protective award under section 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 was held to be well founded. The judgment ordered remuneration for a 90-day protected period but did not quantify a monetary amount. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- section 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- section 190 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- Employment Protection (Recoupment of Benefits) Regulations 1996
- Part XII of the Employment Rights Act 1996
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.