Case 2400560/2022 · Employment Tribunal

Jennifer Ainsworth & others (see attached schedule) v Pure Business Group Limited (In Administration) and 3 others — 2022

Case reference: 2400560/2022
Decision date: 10 November 2022
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Ross Date

Indexed: 21 May 2026

Parties

5 named

Claimant

Jennifer Ainsworth & others (see attached schedule)

Respondents

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The tribunal held that the claimants' complaint under section 180 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, concerning a failure by the third respondent to comply with section 188, was well founded. The case concerned the claimants listed on the attached schedule, who were dismissed for redundancy on 2 November 2021.

By way of protective award, the tribunal ordered the third respondent to pay remuneration for the period of 90 days beginning on 2 November 2021. The judgment did not set out a single monetary total in pounds sterling; instead, it identified the protected period for the award.

The annex records that the Recoupment of Benefits Regulations 1996 apply. It also sets out the usual recoupment information and payment mechanics that follow a protective award.

Claims and outcomes

1 finding recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Trade union	The tribunal held that the complaint under section 180 TULRCA 1992, based on the third respondent's failure to comply with section 188, was well founded. A protective award was made for 90 days' remuneration beginning on 2 November 2021 for the claimants listed on the attached schedule who were dismissed for redundancy on that date.	Upheld	—	—

Legal tests applied

3 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.