Case 2406316/2023 · Employment Tribunal

Ms S Naylor-Whalley v Qube Qualifications and Development Limited (in Creditors Voluntary Liquidation) and 1 other — 2025

Case reference: 2406316/2023
Decision date: 22 May 2025
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Shastri-Hurst Date

Indexed: 18 May 2026

Parties

3 named

Claimant

Ms S Naylor-Whalley

Respondents

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The Tribunal found that the respondent's premises at Bee House, 140 Eastern Avenue, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxfordshire, constituted an establishment for the purposes of s188 TULR(C)A. It also found that there was no recognised trade union or appointed or elected employee representatives for the purposes of s188(1B).

The complaint that the respondent failed to comply with a requirement of s188 TULR(C)A was upheld. The Tribunal made a protective award in favour of the claimant and ordered the respondent to pay remuneration for a period of 90 days beginning on 28 March 2023.

The Tribunal also held that the breach of contract complaint relating to notice pay was well-founded. It awarded the claimant £1,811.08 as damages for breach of contract, equivalent to 4 weeks' pay calculated using net pay.

Claims and outcomes

2 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Other	Protective award claim under s188 TULR(C)A upheld; the award was expressed as remuneration for 90 days beginning on 28 March 2023, but no monetary figure was stated.	Upheld	—	—
Breach of contract	Breach of contract complaint in relation to notice pay was well-founded; damages were equivalent to 4 weeks' pay calculated using net pay.	Upheld	—	£1,811

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.