Case 2408088/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Duker & others v Shearings Holidays Ltd (in administration) and 1 other — 2022
- Case reference
- 2408088/2020
- Decision date
- 25 January 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Johnson Date
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr M Duker & others
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment was made by consent after a joint application by the claimants and the First Respondent, with the Second Respondent consenting. The administrators of the First Respondent granted permission for the scheduled claims to proceed against the First Respondent and lifted the moratorium in relation to those claims.
The tribunal recorded that the scheduled claimants were employed by the First Respondent and, beginning on 22 May 2020, were dismissed by reason of redundancy. It found by consent that the First Respondent failed to adequately comply with a requirement of section 188 of the Trade Union & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, so the claim for a protective award under section 189 succeeded.
The First Respondent was ordered to pay remuneration to the scheduled claimants for a protected period of 60 days beginning on 22 May 2020. Further proceedings were stayed, claims against respondents other than the First Respondent were dismissed on withdrawal, the Recoupment Regulations applied, and there was no order as to costs.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Protective award claim under section 189 of the Trade Union & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 for failure to adequately comply with section 188. Judgment was by consent. | Upheld | — | — |
| Other | All claims against any named respondent other than the First Respondent were dismissed on withdrawal; the judgment does not identify separate substantive claim types for those withdrawn claims. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- Rule 64 of Schedule 1 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution & Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
- section 188 of the Trade Union & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- section 189 of the Trade Union & 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.