Case 2414051/2019 · Employment Tribunal

Mr D Farrell v Late Rooms Limited (in Administration) — 2021

Case reference: 2414051/2019
Decision date: 15 January 2021
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Holmes Dated

Indexed: 21 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr D Farrell

Respondent

Late Rooms Limited (in Administration)

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

This was a Rule 21 judgment in which no valid response had been presented by the respondent, Late Rooms Limited (in Administration). The Tribunal therefore held that the claim succeeded. It found that the respondent had failed to consult the claimant as a person who may be affected by proposals to dismiss, or measures taken in connection with the dismissal of, 20 or more employees, contrary to s.188(1) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.

The Tribunal stated that the claimant was entitled to a protective award for a protected period of 90 days from 2 August 2019. It also explained that a protective award is a two-stage process and that no financial award was made at this stage; the claimant would need to seek payment of any individual award separately, and any dispute about payment or amount would be dealt with under s.192 of the same Act.

The Tribunal also recorded that it had been seeking information and evidence to calculate any notice pay award. It had asked the claimant for further information by letter dated 12 October 2020 and said that if he did not provide the information by 29 January 2021, the notice pay claim would be struck out as not actively pursued.

Claims and outcomes

1 finding recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Trade union	The Tribunal found that the respondent failed to consult the claimant as a person who may be affected by proposals to dismiss, or measures taken in connection with the dismissal of, 20 or more employees, in breach of s.188(1) TULRCA 1992. The Tribunal ordered a protective award, but did not quantify any individual monetary sum in this Rule 21 judgment.	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.