Case 2413224/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs Leanne Tomlinson Mrs Francine Johnson v James Killelea and Company Limited (in Administration) — 2024
- Case reference
- 2413224/2023
- Decision date
- 17 May 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs Leanne Tomlinson Mrs Francine Johnson
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a hearing in Manchester in chambers on 14 May 2024 before Employment Judge K M Ross, the tribunal upheld the claimants' complaints under section 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. It found that James Killelea and Company Limited (in Administration) had failed to comply with the section 188 collective consultation requirements.
The tribunal ordered a protective award under section 189(3) of the 1992 Act. The award was expressed as remuneration equivalent to 90 days beginning on 15 March 2024, and the judgment records that the claimants were dismissed for redundancy between 15 March 2024 and 30 March 2024. The Recoupment Regulations apply.
No monetary total or breakdown for each claimant is set out in the judgment text provided, and the written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Complaint under section 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 alleging failure to comply with section 188 collective consultation requirements. The tribunal found the complaint well-founded and made a protective award for a 90-day protected period beginning 15 March 2024. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 189 TULRCA 1992
- section 188 TULRCA 1992
- section 189(3) TULRCA 1992
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.