Case 2414395/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Hamand v Thomas Cook Airlines Ltd (In Compulsory Liquidation) and 1 other — 2021
- Case reference
- 2414395/2019
- Decision date
- 3 November 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ainscough Date
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr P Hamand
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal issued judgment under rule 21 without a hearing because the first respondent had not presented a response, the Official Receiver confirmed that the protective award claims would not be contested, and the Secretary of State had made legal submissions. The first respondent was in compulsory liquidation and permission had been granted by the High Court for the claim to proceed.
The Tribunal found that the first respondent employed over 20 employees at Manchester Airport and that the claimant worked for Thomas Cook Airlines Limited. The first respondent went into compulsory liquidation on 23 September 2019, the Official Receiver was appointed that morning, and the claimant was notified on 11 October 2019 that his employment was terminated with immediate effect.
The Tribunal found there was no proper warning, notice, or consultation with recognised trade unions or with the claimant, and no employee representatives had been elected or appointed for consultation. It held that the first respondent was in breach of section 188 of the 1992 Act and made a protective award under section 189 for the maximum protected period of 90 days beginning on 23 September 2019. The judgment also stated that the Employment Protection (Recoupment of Jobseeker's Allowance and Income Support) Regulations 1996 apply to the award.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The claim was for a protective award under section 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 for alleged breach of collective consultation requirements under section 188. The locked taxonomy has no specific protective award category, so it is classified as other rather than redundancy_pay. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 - Rule 21
- section 188 Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- section 189 Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- Employment Protection (Recoupment of Jobseeker's Allowance and Income Support) 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.