Case 2401874/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr N Berry & Others (see attached schedule) v UBH International Ltd (In Liquidation) and 1 other — 2021
- Case reference
- 2401874/2020
- Decision date
- 15 March 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Benson Members
- Venue
- Liverpool
- Panel members
- Mr M Stemp, Mrs P J Byrne
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr N Berry & Others (see attached schedule)
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal found that the first respondent failed to comply with section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 and therefore made a protective award. It accepted evidence that there were no recognised trade unions or employee representatives, that the claimants worked at one establishment in Burscough, Lancashire, and that the first respondent entered administration on 17 December 2019 when it employed 96 staff.
The Tribunal found that the only consultation before dismissal took place on 17 December 2019, when the majority of the workforce was assembled, told that they were being dismissed for redundancy, given forms for redundancy and holiday pay, given confirmation letters, and sent home. It accepted the administrator's evidence that consulting for the minimum period would have required the company to continue trading while insolvent, but found that there were no special circumstances that would reduce the protective period.
A protective award was therefore made in respect of the claimants named in the schedule for remuneration equivalent to 90 days beginning on 17 December 2019. The extracted judgment does not state a monetary total for the award, and it includes the usual recoupment directions under the Employment Protection (Recoup of Benefits) Regulations 1996.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trade union | Protective award under section 188 TULRCA 1992 for the claimants named in the schedule. The tribunal ordered remuneration for a protected period of 90 days beginning on 17 December 2019, but the extracted judgment does not state a cash sum. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 188 TULRCA 1992
- special circumstances
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 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.