Case 2405172/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr B Power and others (see attached schedule) v Mothercare UK Limited (in administration) — 2020
- Case reference
- 2405172/2020
- Decision date
- 4 August 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Batten
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr B Power and others (see attached schedule)
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy consent, the Tribunal recorded that the claimants listed in the schedule were employed by Mothercare UK Limited, that joint administrators were appointed on 5 November 2019, and that the claimants were dismissed by reason of redundancy between 8 January 2020 and 14 January 2020.
The Tribunal found that the respondent did not fully inform and consult with the claimants in accordance with sections 188 and 188A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. It made a protective award in favour of the scheduled employees, ordering remuneration for a protected period of 56 days beginning on each claimant's redundancy date.
The judgment states that any protective award amounts not paid by the Redundancy Payments Service under its regulations and limits would rank as ordinary unsecured claims against the administration. No order was made for costs or fees.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Protective award complaint under section 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 for failure to fully inform and consult under sections 188 and 188A. The locked taxonomy has no specific protective award or collective consultation category. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 Rule 64
- s.188 and s.188A Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- s.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.