Case 2406614/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Urban Splash House Holdings Ltd (in Administration) and Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy — 2023
- Case reference
- 2406614/2022
- Decision date
- 28 September 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Horne Members
- Venue
- Liverpool
- Panel members
- Mr I Taylor, Ms M Dowling
Parties
2 namedKey findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that the first respondent proposed to dismiss as redundant more than 20 employees at its Head Office establishment and failed to consult with any appropriate representatives. On that basis it made a protective award against Urban Splash House Holdings Ltd (in administration) and the Secretary of State was the second respondent for recoupment purposes.
The protected period was 90 days beginning on 11 May 2022. The award was in respect of Miss Lacey, Mr Dingle, Miss Lejeune-Peggie, Mr Humphreys, Mrs Stanley-Gaussen and Ms Thomas unanimously, and also in respect of Mr Robinson and Mr Solanki by majority. The judgment does not set out a monetary figure for the award in the short-form decision, only the protected period.
The majority decision at paragraph 5 was made by the non-legal members, with Employment Judge Horne dissenting. The tribunal noted that the Employment Protection (Recoupment of Benefits) Regulations 1996 apply and set out the standard recoupment information in the annex. Reasons were given orally at the hearing, and written reasons were to be provided only if requested within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Protective award for failure to consult about proposed redundancies under section 188(1) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The award was made in respect of all eight claimants; it was unanimous for Miss Lacey, Mr Dingle, Miss Lejeune-Peggie, Mr Humphreys, Mrs Stanley-Gaussen and Ms Thomas, and by majority also for Mr Robinson and Mr Solanki. | 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.