Case 2401529/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Miss R Simpson and six others v Herbert T. Forrest Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 2401529/2018
- Decision date
- 31 January 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Franey
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss R Simpson and six others
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal proceeded under Rule 21 in the absence of any response from the respondent, although the administrator consented on 28 January 2020 to the claims going ahead. The Tribunal also recorded that it had heard evidence in other cases on 21 January 2020 about the circumstances of the respondent's administration in December 2018.
It held that, for each claimant listed in paragraph 2 of the judgment, the protective award claim was well founded because the respondent failed to consult as required by section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The Tribunal ordered remuneration for a protected period of 90 days beginning on 7 December 2018 and stated that the recoupment regulations applied. The extracted text does not set out the individual monetary figure for the award.
The complaints brought by Mr M Edwards in case 2401864/2019 for notice pay and unauthorised deductions from pay were dismissed. The Tribunal said his employment appeared to have transferred to a new employer on 7 December 2018 under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006, so any such complaints lay against the new employer and not this respondent.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Protective award under section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The Tribunal found the respondent failed to consult and ordered remuneration for a protected period of 90 days beginning on 7 December 2018, with the recoupment regulations applying. No monetary sum is stated in the extracted text. | Upheld | — | — |
| Other | Mr M Edwards' complaint in respect of notice pay was dismissed. The Tribunal said his employment had transferred to a new employer on 7 December 2018 under TUPE, so any such complaint lay against the new employer, not this respondent. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Mr M Edwards' complaint of unauthorised deductions from pay was dismissed for the same reason: his employment had transferred to a new employer on 7 December 2018 under TUPE, so the claim lay against the new employer. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Rule 21
- s.188 TULRCA 1992
- Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006
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.