Case 2409380/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Burgess v Clever Company Limited (in Administration) and 1 other — 2023
- Case reference
- 2409380/2022
- Decision date
- 3 April 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ganner
- Venue
- Liverpool
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr S Burgess
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought a claim for a protective award, contending that the first respondent had failed to comply with its duty to consult. No ET3 response was received, so the respondent company was debarred from defending the claim under rule 21(3) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
The Tribunal accepted the claimant's unchallenged evidence that he was employed from 1 July 2019 until 31 October 2022, when he was told without prior warning, consultation or discussion that the company had ceased trading and he was redundant. There was no recognised union, no attempt to arrange employee representative elections, and no consultation took place.
The Tribunal found a clear breach of section 188 of the 1992 Act. Applying the principle that where there has been no consultation at all it is appropriate to start at the maximum 90-day period, and with no mitigating features presented, the Tribunal made a protective award of 90 days' gross pay, calculated as £82.41 per day for 90 days.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Protective award under section 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 for failure to comply with section 188 collective consultation requirements. | Upheld | — | £7,417 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £7,417
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
4 references- section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- section 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- Susie Radin v GMB [2004] 1 IRLR 400
- rule 21(3) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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.