Case 2413286/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr I Craigie v Shearings Ltd (in administration) and 1 other — 2022
- Case reference
- 2413286/2020
- Decision date
- 18 February 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Johnson Date
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr I Craigie
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment was made by consent under Rule 64 after a joint application by the Claimant and First Respondent, with the Second Respondent consenting. Permission was granted for the claim to proceed against the First Respondent and for the moratorium relating to those claims to be lifted by the administrators.
The tribunal recorded that the claimant was employed by the First Respondent and that, beginning on 22 May 2020, the claimants were dismissed by reason of redundancy. It found by consent that the First Respondent failed to adequately comply with a requirement of 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 claimant for a protected period of 60 days beginning on 22 May 2020. Further proceedings were stayed, claims against respondents other than the First Respondent were dismissed on withdrawal, the Recoupment Regulations were stated to apply, and no order for costs was made.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recordedThis 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 | Protective award claim under section 189 of the Trade Union & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, based on failure to adequately comply with section 188, succeeded by consent. The award was expressed as 60 days' remuneration from 22 May 2020, with no monetary figure stated. | Upheld | — | — |
| Other | All claims against any named respondent other than the First Respondent were dismissed on withdrawal; the judgment does not identify any distinct substantive claim type for those withdrawn claims. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- Rule 64 of Schedule 1 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution & Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
- section 188 of the Trade Union & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- section 189 of the Trade Union & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- Employment Protection (Recoupment of Benefits) Regulations 1996
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.