Case 2407974/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs M Atherton-Davies v Makehappen Group Limited (in Administration) — 2024
- Case reference
- 2407974/2023
- Decision date
- 2 January 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Batten Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs M Atherton-Davies
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that the claimant's complaint under section 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 was well-founded because the respondent failed to comply with the consultation requirements in section 188. The judgment records that the claimant was dismissed for redundancy on 18 July 2023.
By way of remedy, the tribunal ordered a protective award under section 189(3) equivalent to remuneration for a period of 90 days beginning on 18 July 2023. The judgment also states that the Recoupment Regulations apply. No separate monetary figure is stated in the judgment text extracted here.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Complaint under section 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 for failure to comply with section 188 consultation requirements. The tribunal made a protective award equivalent to 90 days' remuneration beginning on 18 July 2023 and applied the Recoupment Regulations. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.188 TULRCA 1992
- s.189 TULRCA 1992
- s.189(3) TULRCA 1992
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.