Case 2405911/2021 · Employment Tribunal

1. Mrs AE Young 2. Mr A Mahmood 3. Mrs J Young 4. Mr L Marriot 5. Mr J Fletcher v Thomas Cook Group UK Travel Ltd (in compulsory liquidation) and 2 others — 2022

Case reference: 2405911/2021
Decision date: 30 June 2022
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Ainscough REPRESENTATION

Indexed: 19 May 2026

Parties

4 named

Claimant

1. Mrs AE Young 2. Mr A Mahmood 3. Mrs J Young 4. Mr L Marriot 5. Mr J Fletcher

Respondents

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The Tribunal considered five claimants' claims for protective awards against Thomas Cook UK Travel Limited, Travel and Financial Services Limited, and the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. The hearing took place by CVP at Manchester before Employment Judge Ainscough.

For each of the five claimants, the Tribunal found that it was not reasonably practicable to submit the protective award claim within the time limit prescribed by section 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The Tribunal also found that each claimant had submitted the claim within a reasonable further period.

The judgment records that each claimant's protective award claim would continue. It does not determine the substantive protective award claims or make any monetary award.

Claims and outcomes

1 finding recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Other	The judgment decided only whether each claimant's protective award claim under section 189 TULRCA 1992 could proceed despite being presented outside the prescribed time limit. The claims were permitted to continue; no final liability or award decision was made.	Other	—	—

Legal tests applied

3 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.