Case 2312508/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Joanna Nicholson v SVL Healthcare Services Limited (In Administration) — 2026
- Case reference
- 2312508/2024
- Decision date
- 15 January 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Joanna Nicholson
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimants brought a group claim for a protective award under sections 188 and 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The respondent was in administration, no ET3 Response had been presented, and the administrators confirmed that the claim was not defended and consented to judgment being entered.
The tribunal found that the respondent employed approximately 330 employees and that more than 20 employees were dismissed by reason of redundancy within a 90-day period. It was satisfied that the affected employees were assigned to one establishment, that there was no recognised trade union or existing body of employee representatives, and that no steps were taken to arrange representative elections or carry out collective consultation before dismissal.
The tribunal held that the section 188 duty to consult arose and was wholly not complied with. It made a declaration that the complaint was well-founded and ordered a protective award for the maximum protected period of 90 days beginning on 27 August 2024, without quantifying the monetary value of the award.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trade union | The tribunal upheld a complaint under sections 188 and 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 and made a protective award for 90 days, but made no quantification of the monetary value. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- sections 188 and 189 Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- Susie Radin Ltd v GMB [2004] IRLR 400
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.