Case 2402448/2021 · Employment Tribunal

Mr I Clark & Others (see attached schedules) v Rhys Davies and Sons Limited (In Administration) and 1 other — 2022

Case reference: 2402448/2021
Decision date: 7 March 2022
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Ross REPRESENTATION
Venue: Manchester

Indexed: 19 May 2026

Parties

3 named

Claimant

Mr I Clark & Others (see attached schedules)

Respondents

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The Tribunal held that the complaint by the claimants listed in the attached schedules, brought under section 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, was well-founded. The complaint concerned the first respondent's failure to comply with the requirements of section 188 of the 1992 Act.

The Tribunal ordered the first respondent to pay protective awards under section 189(3). The awards were expressed as payments equivalent to remuneration for 90 days, with different start dates for the groups of claimants in the schedules: 9 December 2020 for Schedule 1, 10 December 2020 for Schedule 2, 18 December 2020 for Schedule 3, and 22 December 2020 for Schedule 4.

The judgment states that the Recoupment Regulations apply. No quantified monetary award is given in the judgment; the award is stated by reference to remuneration for the protected period.

Claims and outcomes

1 finding recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Other	Complaint under section 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 that the first respondent failed to comply with section 188 collective consultation requirements; remedy was a protective award, not a quantified monetary sum in the judgment.	Upheld	—	—

Legal tests applied

4 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.