Case 2305337/2024 · Employment Tribunal

(1) Christopher Neal (2305337/2024 & 2305338/2024) (2) Joanne Oliver (2305339/2024) (3) Andrew Chapman (2305340/2024) (4) Linda Cameron (2305341/2024) (5) Allison Alexander (2305342/2024) (6) Tegan Chapman (2305343/2024) (7) Emily Carr (2305344/2024) (8) Megan Farnall (2305345/2024) (9) Nikki Mandviwala (2305346/2024) (10) Naomi King (2305347/2024) (11) Samuel Miller (2305348/2024) (12) Massum Ali (2305349/2024) (13) Syed Abbas (2305350/2024) (14) Michael Edwards (2305351/2024) (15) Jamie Panter (2305352/2024) v Tenet Group Limited (In Administration) and 1 other — 2025

Case reference: 2305337/2024
Decision date: 10 November 2025
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge E Fowell Representation

Indexed: 25 April 2026

Parties

3 named

Claimant

(1) Christopher Neal (2305337/2024 & 2305338/2024) (2) Joanne Oliver (2305339/2024) (3) Andrew Chapman (2305340/2024) (4) Linda Cameron (2305341/2024) (5) Allison Alexander (2305342/2024) (6) Tegan Chapman (2305343/2024) (7) Emily Carr (2305344/2024) (8) Megan Farnall (2305345/2024) (9) Nikki Mandviwala (2305346/2024) (10) Naomi King (2305347/2024) (11) Samuel Miller (2305348/2024) (12) Massum Ali (2305349/2024) (13) Syed Abbas (2305350/2024) (14) Michael Edwards (2305351/2024) (15) Jamie Panter (2305352/2024)

Respondents

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The 15 claimants worked for the First Respondent (Tenet Group Limited) until 5 June 2024, when they were summarily dismissed without notice or consultation as the company entered administration. A total of 95 employees were dismissed that day. There was no recognised trade union and no elected employee representatives. The administrators consented to the claim proceeding and did not contest it.

The Tribunal found that the duty to consult under section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 had been engaged and that there had been no consultation. Following the guidance in Susie Radin v GMB that the starting point is the 90-day maximum and should be reduced only for mitigating circumstances, the Tribunal awarded each claimant the 90-day maximum, beginning on 6 June 2024. Because s.189 of the 1992 Act is listed in Schedule A2 to the same Act, the Tribunal applied the maximum 25% uplift under the ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures. The Recoupment Regulations apply.

Claims and outcomes

1 finding recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Other	Protective award under TULRCA 1992 s.189; 15 claimants summarily dismissed without consultation when the First Respondent went into administration on 5 June 2024. Maximum 90-day protected period awarded, with a 25% uplift for failure to comply with the ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures (s.189 is a Schedule A2 jurisdiction).	Upheld	—	—

Legal tests applied

8 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

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.

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.