Case 2408440/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs B O’Keefe and others (see attached schedule) v Ena Shaw Limited (in administration) — 2022
- Case reference
- 2408440/2020
- Decision date
- 25 July 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Robinson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs B O’Keefe and others (see attached schedule)
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that all the claims for a protective award were well founded. It found that Ena Shaw Limited failed to inform and consult with the claimants in accordance with the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, and that the seriousness of that default justified the maximum protective award period of 90 days.
The tribunal recorded that all the claimants were dismissed by reason of redundancy with immediate effect on 12 February 2020. It also found that the proceedings were issued in time on 9 June 2020. The award was made under section 189 of the 1992 Act and was to run for 90 days in each case commencing on 12 February 2020.
The judgment also records that the names of the employees covered by the protective award are set out in the attached schedule, and that the necessary consent of the Administrators had previously been obtained. The extracted text does not state any separate monetary total for the award, only the 90-day period applying to each claimant.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Protective award claim under section 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The tribunal found the claims well founded and awarded the maximum 90-day protective award. | Upheld | — | — |
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.