Case 2405387/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs N Bettely and others named in the attached schedule v Ena Shaw Limited (in administration) and 1 other — 2021
- Case reference
- 2405387/2020
- Decision date
- 19 March 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Leach Date
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mrs N Bettely and others named in the attached schedule
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe first respondent did not present a response. The second respondent presented a response stating that it did not resist the claims, and judgment was granted to the claimants under Rule 21.
The Tribunal found that the claimants listed in the attached schedule were employed by the first respondent, which went into administration in February 2020. On 12 February 2020 the claimants were dismissed by reason of redundancy with immediate effect.
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. It made a protective award under s189 of the 1992 Act in favour of the scheduled claimants for the maximum protected period of 90 days commencing on 12 February 2020, with recoupment provisions applying.
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 locked taxonomy has no specific protective award category, so classified as other. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 Rule 21
- 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.