Case 2413995/2020 · Employment Tribunal
1. Mr L Armstrong and 102 others (see attached schedule) 2. Mr D Woolf 3. Mr D Murray 4. Mrs S Lucas v Sash UK Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 2413995/2020
- Decision date
- 25 February 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
1. Mr L Armstrong and 102 others (see attached schedule) 2. Mr D Woolf 3. Mr D Murray 4. Mrs S Lucas
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe joint administrators of the respondent indicated that they consented to the claims proceeding, that this was not an admission that the contracts of employment had been adopted, that they had no personal liability, and that any award would rank as an unsecured claim against the respondent. They also said they did not intend to contest the claims for a protective award. On that basis the stay was lifted. Mr D Paul, case 2414054/2020, was dismissed upon withdrawal, and Mrs S Lucas's duplicate case 2414232/2020 was dismissed upon withdrawal as a duplicate of her claim 2414043/2020.
The tribunal found that the respondent failed to comply with sections 188 and 188A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. It declared that the protective-award claims of the first claimant, the scheduled claimants save Mr D Paul, and the second, third and fourth claimants were well-founded. The judgment states that the relevant employees worked at the respondent's premises at Ferrymoor Way, Grimethorpe, South Yorkshire, and were dismissed as redundant on 12 June 2020.
A protective award was made for the claimants. The protected period began on 12 June 2020 and lasted 90 days. The tribunal said it was just and equitable to make the maximum award because there had been a complete failure to comply with the statutory requirements for collective consultation. The recoupment provisions apply. The extracted text does not state a monetary sum for the award.
Claims and outcomes
3 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 and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992; the tribunal held the respondent failed to comply with sections 188 and 188A and declared the protective-award claims well-founded. The protected period was 90 days from 12 June 2020. No monetary figure was stated in the extracted text. | Upheld | — | — |
| Other | Case number 2414054/2020, Mr D Paul, was dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Other | Case number 2414232/2020, Mrs S Lucas, was dismissed upon withdrawal because it duplicated her claim 2414043/2020. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- s.188 TULRCA 1992
- s.188A TULRCA 1992
- s.189 TULRCA 1992
- just and equitable
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.