Case 2404857/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr B Ansell and 10 others v JDS 64 Limited and 2 others — 2026
- Case reference
- 2404857/2024
- Decision date
- 15 January 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dick Appearances
Parties
4 namedClaimant
Mr B Ansell and 10 others
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe 11 claimants brought claims for protective awards against AUK Realisations 2024 Limited (formerly Amscan International Limited, in administration). The judgment was issued by consent of the claimants and the Second Respondent.
The Tribunal found that the Second Respondent had failed adequately to comply with the consultation requirements of section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 and that the protective-award claims under section 189 succeeded. It ordered the Second Respondent to pay each claimant remuneration for a 90-day protected period beginning on 16 July 2024, the date of the first relevant dismissal. All other claims and complaints against the Second and Third Respondents were dismissed upon withdrawal; this did not affect any claims against the First Respondent (JDS 64 Limited).
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Protective award under TULRCA 1992 s.189; 11 claimants. Judgment issued by consent of the claimants and the Second Respondent (formerly Amscan International Ltd, now AUK Realisations 2024 Ltd, in administration). All other claims/complaints against the Second and Third Respondents were dismissed upon withdrawal. 90-day protected period awarded from 16 July 2024. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 188 Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- section 189 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.