Case 2414076/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Flanagan v Aspin Group Limited (in Administration) — 2020
- Case reference
- 2414076/2019
- Decision date
- 20 March 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Phil Allen
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Flanagan
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment in Mr C Flanagan v Aspin Group Limited (in Administration). Employment Judge Phil Allen found that the respondent failed to comply with section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.
As a result, the tribunal required the respondent to pay the claimant a protective award under section 189(1)(d) of that Act in the sum of £15,643.80. The extracted judgment contains no separate reasons beyond that finding and award.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trade union | Rule 21 judgment. The tribunal found the respondent failed to comply with section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 and ordered a protective award under section 189(1)(d). | Upheld | — | £15,644 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £15,644
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
3 references- Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- section 189(1)(d) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 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.