Case 2400671/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr L Dean & others (see attached schedule) v H.P.A.S Limited trading as Safestyle UK (in administration) — 2025
- Case reference
- 2400671/2024
- Decision date
- 23 July 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Singh Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr L Dean & others (see attached schedule)
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dealt with complaints by Mr L Dean and the other claimants against H.P.A.S Limited trading as Safestyle UK (in administration) under s.188(1) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, concerning consultation about proposed dismissals. The judgment was issued under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
The tribunal found the complaints well-founded. It made a protective award requiring the respondent to pay remuneration to each claimant for the protected period specified in the judgment, namely 90 days from 30 October 2023. The Recoupment Regulations apply to the award.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trade union | Complaint that the respondent failed to comply with s.188(1) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 in relation to consultation about proposed dismissals. The tribunal made a protective award for a protected period of 90 days from 30 October 2023. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.188(1) Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- Rule 21 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.