Case 2304889/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Thomas v Shearings Ltd (in administration) — 2021
- Case reference
- 2304889/2020
- Decision date
- 21 December 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dyal Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr P Thomas
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment was made by consent under Rule 64 after the parties agreed its terms. The administrators of the respondent granted permission for the claims to proceed against the first respondent and lifted the moratorium in relation to those claims.
The tribunal recorded that the claimant was employed by the respondent and was dismissed by reason of redundancy on 22 May 2020. It found by consent that the respondent failed to adequately comply with section 188 of the Trade Union & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, so the protective award claim under section 189 succeeded.
The respondent was ordered to pay remuneration for a protected period of 60 days beginning on 22 May 2020. Further proceedings were stayed, claims against any named respondent other than the respondent were dismissed on withdrawal, the Recoupment Regulations applied, and there was no order as to costs.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Protective award claim brought under section 189 of the Trade Union & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 for failure to adequately comply with section 188. The judgment was made by consent under Rule 64. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Rule 64 of Schedule 1 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution & Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
- section 188 of the Trade Union & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- section 189 of the Trade Union & 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.