Case 2407124/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr N Monk v Qube Qualifications and Development Limited (in Creditors Voluntary Liquidation) and 1 other — 2025
- Case reference
- 2407124/2023
- Decision date
- 27 February 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shastri-Hurst Date
Parties
3 namedKey findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal found that the respondent's premises at Bee House, 140 Eastern Avenue, Milton Park, Abingdon constituted an establishment for the purposes of s188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. It also found that there was no recognised trade union and no 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, and the Tribunal made a protective award. The respondent was ordered to pay remuneration for a 90-day protected period beginning on 28 March 2023, in the sum of £5,440.81.
The Tribunal also found the breach of contract complaint in relation to notice pay to be well-founded. It ordered payment of £1,489.20 as damages, equivalent to four weeks' net pay, with credit to be given for sums paid by the Redundancy Payments Service in relation to notice pay.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Protective award for failure to comply with a requirement of s188 TULR(C)A, classified as other because the locked taxonomy has no specific protective award category. | Upheld | — | £5,441 |
| Breach of contract | Breach of contract in relation to notice pay; the judgment states credit is to be given for sums paid by the Redundancy Payments Service in relation to notice pay, but does not specify the credited amount. | Upheld | — | £1,489 |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s188 TULR(C)A
- s188(1B) TULR(C)A
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.