Case 2307426/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Debenhams Retail Limited (in Administration) — 2023
- Case reference
- 2307426/2020
- Decision date
- 17 January 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Broughton Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimants listed in the schedule were employed by Debenhams Retail Limited in its Sutton store. The respondent entered administration on 9 April 2020, and the claimants were dismissed by reason of redundancy on or after 14 August 2020.
The tribunal found that the claimants were assigned to an establishment where 20 or more redundancies were proposed within 90 days. It found that the respondent did not fully inform and consult with the claimants in accordance with sections 188 and 188A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.
The tribunal made a protective award with a protected period of 90 days from the date of the first dismissal, 14 August 2020. The judgment stated that protective award payments would rank as unsecured claims in the insolvency, with some potentially recoverable from the Redundancy Payments Service, and made no order for costs or fees.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Complaint under section 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 seeking a protective award for failure to inform and consult under sections 188 and 188A. The judgment set a protected period of 90 days from 14 August 2020 but did not state a monetary sum. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 189 Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- s.188 Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- s.188A Trade Union and 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.