Case 2402353/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs J Noblett & others named in attached schedule v Ena Shaw Limited (in administration) and 1 other — 2021
- Case reference
- 2402353/2020
- Decision date
- 1 March 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sharkett
- Venue
- LIVERPOOL via CVP
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mrs J Noblett & others named in attached schedule
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimants listed in the attached schedule were employed by Ena Shaw Limited. The first respondent went into administration on 11 February 2020, and the claimants were dismissed by reason of redundancy with immediate effect on the morning of 12 February 2020.
The tribunal found that the first respondent failed to inform and consult with the claimants in accordance with s188 and s188A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The claimants brought a complaint under s189 of that Act seeking a protective award, and the tribunal recorded that the administrators' consent to the proceedings had been obtained.
The tribunal made a protective award in favour of the claimants named in the schedule for the maximum protected period of 90 days, commencing on 12 February 2020. The judgment states that the recoupment provisions apply to the award.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Complaint under s189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 seeking a protective award for failure to inform and consult under s188 and s188A. The tribunal awarded the maximum protected period of 90 days commencing on 12 February 2020; no monetary amount was stated. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s188 Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- s188A Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- s189 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.