Case 2400173/2020 · Employment Tribunal
1. Alec Birch 2. Paul Fisher 3. David Gawronek 4. Steven Ince 5. Barry McHugh 6. Peter Parkinson v Fox Fabrication & Construction Ltd (in voluntary liquidation) — 2020
- Case reference
- 2400173/2020
- Decision date
- 31 January 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shotter JUDGMENT
- Venue
- Liverpool
Parties
2 namedClaimant
1. Alec Birch 2. Paul Fisher 3. David Gawronek 4. Steven Ince 5. Barry McHugh 6. Peter Parkinson
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal recorded that, by consent, the claim for a protective award under section 189(1)(d) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 was well-founded. The reason given was that Fox Fabrication & Construction Ltd, when it went into voluntary liquidation in or around 25 September 2019, failed to consult the claimants and did not comply with section 188 of the 1992 Act.
No remedy figure was determined in this judgment. The tribunal directed that the claims be listed for a remedy hearing, to be heard by a full tribunal with an estimated length of three hours.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | By consent, the tribunal held that the protective award claim under section 189(1)(d) TULR(C)A 1992 was well-founded because the respondent failed to consult the claimants or comply with section 188 when it went into voluntary liquidation in or around 25 September 2019. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 189(1)(d) TULR(C)A 1992
- section 188 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.