Case 2402069/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Van Leeuwen v STA Travel Limited (in liquidation) and 1 other — 2022
- Case reference
- 2402069/2021
- Decision date
- 16 August 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge McDonald
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr M Van Leeuwen
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal found that the claimant was employed within an establishment where the first respondent proposed to dismiss as redundant 20 or more employees within a period of 90 days or less.
It found that the first respondent failed to comply with the requirement to consult with the claimant before dismissing him, in breach of section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The Tribunal therefore made a protective award requiring the first respondent to pay remuneration for a protected period of 90 days beginning on 2 September 2020.
The judgment recorded that no financial award was made at this stage. The claimant would need to seek payment from the first respondent or the Secretary of State, with any failure to pay or dispute about the amount to be addressed by a separate claim under section 192 of the 1992 Act.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Protective award claim under section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The judgment made no financial award at this stage and ordered remuneration for a protected period of 90 days beginning on 2 September 2020. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- section 192 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.