Case 2409412/2020 · Employment Tribunal

Mr K Stephenson and 5 others listed on the attached schedule v Bibby Hydromap Limited (in Administration) — 2021

Case reference: 2409412/2020
Decision date: 17 June 2021
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Batten

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr K Stephenson and 5 others listed on the attached schedule

Respondent

Bibby Hydromap Limited (in Administration)

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The Tribunal held under section 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 that the claimants' complaint that Bibby Hydromap Limited (in Administration) had failed to comply with section 188 was well-founded.

It ordered a protective award under section 189(3) for the claimants listed on the attached schedule who were dismissed by reason of redundancy on or after 3 April 2020. The award was equivalent to remuneration for a period of 90 days beginning on 3 April 2020.

The annex records that the Employment Protection (Recoupment of Benefits) Regulations 1996 apply. The judgment does not state a single cash total for the award; it expresses the remedy as remuneration for the protected period, subject to recoupment.

Claims and outcomes

1 finding recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Other	Protective award complaint under section 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 for failure to comply with section 188 collective consultation obligations. The tribunal ordered a protective award equivalent to 90 days' remuneration beginning on 3 April 2020 for the claimants listed on the attached schedule who were dismissed by reason of redundancy on or after that date.	Upheld	—	—

Legal tests applied

4 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.

Open official judgment PDF on gov.uk

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.