Case 2400617/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Christina Flanagan & others (see attached schedule) v Pure Business Group Limited (In Administration) and 3 others — 2022
- Case reference
- 2400617/2022
- Decision date
- 11 November 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ross Date
Parties
5 namedClaimant
Christina Flanagan & others (see attached schedule)
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment, issued under Rule 21, concerns a group of claimants including Christina Flanagan and lists the first respondent as Pure Business Group Limited (In Administration). The Tribunal found that the claimants’ complaint under section 180 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, namely that the first respondent failed to comply with section 188, was well founded.
The Tribunal ordered the first respondent, by way of a protective award, to pay the claimant and the other claimants listed on the attached schedule who were dismissed for redundancy on 2 November 2021 remuneration for the period of 90 days beginning on that date. The judgment records that the Recoupment Regulations apply.
No separate total award or claimant-by-claimant monetary breakdown is stated in the extracted text. The remedy recorded is the 90-day protective award period rather than a single lump sum figure.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Protective award claim under section 180 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 for failure to comply with section 188. The Tribunal ordered remuneration for a 90-day protected period beginning 2 November 2021, but the judgment does not split a monetary amount for this individual claim. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.180 TULRCA 1992
- s.188 TULRCA 1992
- Rule 21
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.