Case 2413201/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Waterhouse & Others v James Killelea and Company Limited (in Administration) — 2024
- Case reference
- 2413201/2023
- Decision date
- 17 May 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Waterhouse & Others
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a hearing in chambers in Manchester on 14 May 2024, Employment Judge K M Ross held that the claimants' complaints under section 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 were well-founded. The respondent, James Killelea and Company Limited (in Administration), had failed to comply with the consultation requirements in section 188 of the 1992 Act.
The tribunal ordered a protective award under section 189(3) for the claimants listed in the attached schedule, who had been dismissed for redundancy between 13 October 2023 and 10 November 2023. The award was for remuneration equivalent to 90 days beginning on 13 October 2023, and the Recoupment Regulations applied. The written record notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and no further written reasons were provided.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trade union | Protective award claim under sections 188 and 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992; the tribunal found the claimants' complaints well-founded and ordered a 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.