Case 2405280/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Adshead and others (see attached schedule) v API Laminates Limited (in Administration) and 2 others — 2020
- Case reference
- 2405280/2020
- Decision date
- 21 December 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Batten
Parties
4 namedClaimant
Mr P Adshead and others (see attached schedule)
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal recorded that the claimants were employed by the first respondent and were dismissed by reason of redundancy on either 2 February 2020 or 3 March 2020. On the parties' joint application, and on the terms agreed between the claimants and the administrators of the respondents, the tribunal found that the first respondent had failed adequately to comply with section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.
As a result, the claims for a protective award under section 189 of the 1992 Act were found to be well-founded and succeeded. The tribunal ordered the first respondent to pay remuneration to all claimants listed in the attached schedule for a protected period of 90 days beginning on 2 February 2020, and stated that each claimant was entitled to a 90-day protective award regardless of the date on which their employment ended. The Recoupment Regulations applied, and there was no order as to costs.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Protective award claim under section 189 TULRCA 1992 following failure to comply with section 188; tribunal awarded a 90-day protected period for each claimant. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 188 TULRCA 1992
- section 189 TULRCA 1992
- Employment Protection (Recoupment of Benefits) Regulations 1996
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.