Case 2309610/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss M Roby v Folkestone Fixings Limited (In administration) — 2025
- Case reference
- 2309610/2024
- Decision date
- 20 August 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Mclaren JUDGMENT
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss M Roby
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy judgment dated 20 August 2025, Employment Judge Mclaren made a judgment by consent between Miss M Roby and Folkestone Fixings Limited (in administration). The tribunal recorded that the claimant had been dismissed as redundant following the respondent's administration and made a protective award under section 189(2) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.
The tribunal fixed the protected period under section 189(4) TULR(C)A at 90 days beginning on 20 September 2024, the date on which the first of the relevant dismissals took effect. The judgment states that the recoupment regulations apply to the protective award.
The reasons section says the judgment reflects terms agreed between the parties and is restricted to matters within the tribunal's jurisdiction. It also records the parties' agreement that any part of an award not paid by the RPS after an application would rank as an unsecured creditor claim in the administration, and that no costs applications would be made arising out of the matters referred to in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Protective award made by consent under section 189(2) of TULR(C)A 1992 in respect of dismissals as redundant following the respondent's administration. The judgment records a protected period of 90 days beginning on 20 September 2024 under section 189(4). | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Rule 62
- section 189(2) TULR(C)A 1992
- section 189(4) TULR(C)A 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.