Case 2400415/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Lowe v Kenyon Road Haulage Ltd (in administration) and 1 other — 2024
- Case reference
- 2400415/2024
- Decision date
- 23 September 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Eeley
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr M Lowe
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal considered a claim for a protective award arising from the first respondent's alleged failure to consult under sections 188 and 188A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. It found that the claim had not been presented within the applicable time limit, but that it had not been reasonably practicable to present it in time and that it was presented within a further reasonable period.
The complaint seeking a protective award under section 189 of the 1992 Act was found to be well founded. The tribunal found that the first respondent failed in its duty to consult the claimant and ordered the first respondent to pay remuneration for a protected period of ninety days starting on 20 March 2023. The judgment also stated that the recoupment regulations apply.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Protective award under section 189 Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 for failure to consult under sections 188 and 188A. The tribunal ordered remuneration for a protected period of ninety days starting on 20 March 2023, but did not state a monetary amount. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- sections 188 and 188A Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- section 189 Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- reasonably practicable
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.