Case 2306007/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Rodrigues & others (see attached schedule) Miss M Christie v Kasterlee UK Limited and 1 other — 2021
- Case reference
- 2306007/2020
- Decision date
- 15 December 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Khalil
- Venue
- London South
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr Rodrigues & others (see attached schedule) Miss M Christie
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Khalil, sitting alone at London South on 15 December 2021, heard the case with no appearance for either respondent. The tribunal stated that, because of the first respondent's non-compliance with s.188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, it made a declaration to that effect and a Protective Award for 90 days.
The award was expressed to run from 16 June 2020 under s.189(4) TULRA 1992. It was made in respect of all claimants in the proceedings who were dismissed as redundant on that day pursuant to s.189(3) TULRA 1992. The judgment record says reasons were given at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days.
The annex dealt with recoupment of benefits under the Employment Protection (Recoupment of Benefits) Regulations 1996. It required the respondent to provide the Secretary of State with each affected employee's name, address, National Insurance number and termination date, and explained the operation of any recoupment notice against sums due under the protective award.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Protective award under s.189 TULRA 1992 following the first respondent's non-compliance with s.188; award stated as 90 days from 16 June 2020. No monetary sum was specified in the judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- s.188 TULRA 1992
- s.189(3) TULRA 1992
- s.189(4) TULRA 1992
- Employment Protection (Recoupment of Benefits) Regulations 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.