Case 2405921/2021 · Employment Tribunal

1. Miss G Murphy 2. Mrs C Hallam 3. Mrs J Gibbons 4. Ms E Watson v Thomas Cook Airlines Ltd (In Compulsory Liquidation) and 3 others — 2022

Case reference: 2405921/2021
Decision date: 2 February 2022
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Ainscough REPRESENTATION

Indexed: 18 May 2026

Parties

5 named

Claimant

1. Miss G Murphy 2. Mrs C Hallam 3. Mrs J Gibbons 4. Ms E Watson

Respondents

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The Tribunal considered four claims for a protective award brought by the claimants against the respondents. The issue determined in this judgment was whether the claims could proceed despite not being submitted within the time limit prescribed by section 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.

For each of the four claimants, the Tribunal found that it was not reasonably practicable to submit the claim within the prescribed time limit. It also found that each claimant had submitted her claim within a reasonable further period. The claims were therefore allowed to continue; no substantive protective award or monetary remedy was determined in this judgment.

Claims and outcomes

1 finding recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Other	The judgment concerned whether each claimant's protective award claim under section 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 could proceed despite being presented outside the prescribed time limit. The substantive protective award claim was not finally adjudicated in this judgment.	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.