Case 2402044/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Pure Business Group Limited (In Administration) — 2022
- Case reference
- 2402044/2022
- Decision date
- 14 November 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ross Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment in which Employment Judge Ross Date held that the claimants' complaint under section 180 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, based on an alleged failure by the third respondent to comply with section 188, was well founded. The respondents were Pure Business Group Limited, Pure Claims Support Services Limited, PLL 1 Realisations Limited and Pure Technology Systems Limited, all in administration.
The tribunal ordered the third respondent to pay remuneration by way of a protective award to the claimant and the other claimants listed on the attached schedule, who had been dismissed for redundancy on 2 November 2021. The protected period was 90 days beginning on 2 November 2021. The judgment also recorded that the Recoupment Regulations apply.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trade union | Complaint under section 180 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 alleging failure by the third respondent to comply with section 188. The tribunal made a protective award for the claimants listed on the attached schedule for a protected period of 90 days beginning on 2 November 2021. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 180 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
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.