Case 2411010/2019 · Employment Tribunal

Mr E Berkolds and 26 others listed on the attached schedule v Jamie’s Italian Limited (in Administration) and 1 other — 2021

Case reference: 2411010/2019
Decision date: 18 January 2021
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Batten

Indexed: 19 May 2026

Parties

3 named

Claimant

Mr E Berkolds and 26 others listed on the attached schedule

Respondents

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The judgment was made by consent under Rule 64. 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 case number 2411010/2019, in the name of Mr Edward Berkolds, duplicated the claim registered under case number 2411011/2019, and dismissed the duplicate claim on withdrawal. For the claimants named in the schedule, the tribunal held that the first respondent failed to adequately comply with section 188 of the Trade Union & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, so the protective award claim under section 189 succeeded.

The first respondent was ordered to pay remuneration to the scheduled claimants for a protected period of 56 days beginning on 21 May 2019. The judgment did not state a total monetary award and made no order as to costs.

Claims and outcomes

2 findings recorded

This 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	The judgment states that the claim registered as 2411010/2019 in Mr Edward Berkolds' name was a duplicate of case number 2411011/2019 and was dismissed on withdrawal.	Withdrawn	—	—
Other	Protective award claim under section 189 of the Trade Union & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The locked taxonomy has no specific protective award category.	Upheld	—	—

Legal tests applied

3 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.