Case 2405642/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Just Costs Solicitors Ltd (in Administration) and Secretary of State for BEIS — 2019
- Case reference
- 2405642/2019
- Decision date
- 3 December 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Franey
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Franey, sitting alone in Manchester on 14 November 2019, heard the combined cases brought by 24 claimants against Just Costs Solicitors Ltd (in administration) and the Secretary of State for BEIS. The tribunal held that the first respondent's London and Manchester offices were part of one establishment for the purposes of section 188(1) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.
The tribunal found that the first respondent failed to comply with section 188 because it did not consult appropriate representatives of the employees about the dismissals. On that basis it made a protective award covering the protected period of 90 days from 25 January 2019, when the first of the dismissals took effect.
The judgment also records that the recoupment regulations apply. It does not set out a monetary figure for the award in the extracted text, only the order that each claimant is to receive remuneration for the protected period.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Protective award under section 188 TULRCA 1992. The tribunal found the first respondent failed to consult appropriate representatives and ordered payment of remuneration for the protected period of 90 days from 25 January 2019, but the judgment does not state a lump-sum amount. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 188(1) Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 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.