Case 2406092/2019 · Employment Tribunal

Mr J Howard & others v Walkers Instore Limited and 1 other — 2019

Case reference: 2406092/2019
Decision date: 8 November 2019
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Feeney REPRESENTATION
Venue: Manchester

Indexed: 19 May 2026

Parties

3 named

Claimant

Mr J Howard & others

Respondents

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The Tribunal issued judgment under rule 21 because the respondents had not served a response to the claimants' claims. Neither side attended the hearing.

The Tribunal found the claimants' complaint under section 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 well-founded. The complaint concerned the first respondent's failure to comply with the requirements of section 188 of that Act.

By way of a protective award, the Tribunal ordered the first respondent to pay all employees employed at its premises at 13 Crabtree Lane, Manchester, M11 4GU who were dismissed for redundancy on 11 February 2019 remuneration for 90 days beginning on 11 February 2019. The recoupment regulations apply.

Claims and outcomes

1 finding recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Other	Complaint under section 189 Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 that the first respondent failed to comply with the collective consultation requirements of section 188; protective award made for 90 days' remuneration, but no monetary amount is specified.	Upheld	—	—

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.

Open official judgment PDF on gov.uk

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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.