Case 2408986/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss J Goldsworthy Miss S Holbrook v The Liverpool School of English Ltd (In Creditors Voluntary Liquidation) — 2022
- Case reference
- 2408986/2021
- Decision date
- 6 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ord Representation
- Venue
- Liverpool
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss J Goldsworthy Miss S Holbrook
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing on 20 April 2022, before Employment Judge Ord, with the claimants appearing in person and the respondent not appearing, the tribunal held that the claimants' complaints under section 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 were well founded because the respondent had failed to comply with section 188. The tribunal ordered a protective award under section 189(3) for a protected period of 90 days beginning on 25 June 2021, the date on which the dismissals to which the complaints related took effect.
The judgment did not quantify a monetary payment for either claimant at this stage. It recorded that a protective award is a two-stage process and that the claimants must later seek payment of their individual awards from the respondent by quantifying the amount payable. It also stated that any failure to pay, or any dispute as to the amount, would be dealt with by a further separate claim under section 192 of TULR(C)A, and that the Employment Protection (Recoupment of Jobseeker’s Allowance and Income Support) Regulations 1996 applied.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trade union | Complaint under section 189 TULR(C)A for failure to comply with section 188; tribunal ordered a protective award for a protected period of 90 days beginning on 25 June 2021, but did not quantify individual sums in this judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.188 TULR(C)A
- s.189(3) TULR(C)A
- s.192 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.