Case 2401665/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs M Wiggins & Others (see attached schedule) v EBS Systems Limited (In administration) and 1 other — 2022
- Case reference
- 2401665/2020
- Decision date
- 8 February 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Benson Representation
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mrs M Wiggins & Others (see attached schedule)
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the CVP hearing on 28 January 2022, evidence was given by Mrs A Lake-Bradley on behalf of the claimants who attended, and the Tribunal considered the Secretary of State's grounds of resistance. The Tribunal recorded that no response had been filed by the first respondent's administrator, but consent had been given for the protective award claim only to proceed.
On the evidence, the Tribunal found that there were no recognised trade unions or employee representatives, that the claimants were employed at one establishment in Warrington, Cheshire, and that the first respondent went into administration on 27 February 2020. It found that more than 50 employees were employed at the premises, that no consultation took place, and that employees had been told in January and February 2020 that the business was in a good position or that there were no financial issues for them to be concerned about, which the Tribunal found was incorrect. On 27 February 2020 the claimants and other staff were told that the respondent was in administration and that they were redundant with immediate effect.
The Tribunal found that there were no special circumstances reducing the protective period. It declared the section 188 TULRCA 1992 complaints well founded and made a protective award in respect of the claimants listed in the schedule for a period of 90 days beginning on 27 February 2020. The judgment did not specify a monetary figure for the award, only the protected period, and it included the usual recoupment directions under the Employment Protection (Recoup of Benefits) Regulations 1996.
The judgment also recorded that consent of the administrator had not been given to pursue the unfair dismissal, breach of contract, redundancy payment and unpaid wages claims. Those remaining claims were to be dismissed unless the claimants objected by 28 February 2022 and produced the administrator's consent or permission of the court to continue them.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Protective award complaint under sections 188 and 189 TULRCA 1992. The Tribunal ordered remuneration for a 90-day protected period beginning on 27 February 2020, but no monetary total was stated in the judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment records that the administrator's consent had not been given to pursue this claim and that remaining claims would be dismissed unless objection was made by 28 February 2022 together with the required consent or court permission. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The judgment records that the administrator's consent had not been given to pursue this claim and that remaining claims would be dismissed unless objection was made by 28 February 2022 together with the required consent or court permission. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | The judgment records that the administrator's consent had not been given to pursue this claim and that remaining claims would be dismissed unless objection was made by 28 February 2022 together with the required consent or court permission. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment records that the administrator's consent had not been given to pursue this claim and that remaining claims would be dismissed unless objection was made by 28 February 2022 together with the required consent or court permission. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- section 188 TULRCA 1992
- section 189 TULRCA 1992
- section 195 TULRCA 1992
- The Bakers’ Union v Clarks of Hove Ltd
- In re Hartlebury Printers Ltd
- Susie Radin Limited v GMB
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.