Case 2401656/2021 · Employment Tribunal

1. Miss Anastasia Gklantzouni 2. Mr Callum O’Neill 3. Mrs Carla Warrington 4. Mr Michael Holland 5. Mrs Umelaila Hussain v STA Travel Limited (in liquidation) and 1 other — 2022

Case reference: 2401656/2021
Decision date: 27 July 2022
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge McDonald REPRESENTATION
Venue: Manchester

Indexed: 19 May 2026

Parties

3 named

Claimant

1. Miss Anastasia Gklantzouni 2. Mr Callum O’Neill 3. Mrs Carla Warrington 4. Mr Michael Holland 5. Mrs Umelaila Hussain

Respondents

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The claimants claimed a protective award for breach of collective consultation requirements. The first respondent did not present a response, and judgment was given under Rule 21 on the information before the Tribunal. The Secretary of State was joined because of its role as statutory guarantor.

The Tribunal found that the first respondent had no recognised trade union and no elected representatives, employed over 20 employees at St George's House, and dismissed all employees at that establishment when the business ceased trading on 2 September 2020. It found that the duty to consult under section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 applied, and that there had been no proper warning, notice, consultation, or advance written information.

The Tribunal held that the first respondent was in breach of section 188 and made a protective award under section 189 in favour of each claimant for the maximum protected period of 90 days beginning on 2 September 2020. The judgment stated that no financial award was made at this stage and that individual awards would need to be quantified and sought from the respondent or the Secretary of State.

Claims and outcomes

1 finding recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Other	Protective award claim for breach of collective consultation requirements under section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992; no monetary amount was quantified at this stage.	Upheld	—	—

Legal tests applied

5 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.

Open official judgment PDF on gov.uk

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.