Case 2414547/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Peter James v Sonetik UK Ltd (In voluntary liquidation) — 2020
- Case reference
- 2414547/2019
- Decision date
- 3 August 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Phil Allen
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Peter James
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent did not present a response to the claims. On the information before Employment Judge Phil Allen, the tribunal issued judgment under Rule 21 without a hearing.
The tribunal found that the respondent failed to comply with its statutory collective consultation obligations under section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 before proposed redundancy dismissals took effect at its Preston establishment. It made a protective award for the claimant for a protected period of 90 days beginning on 25 September 2019.
The tribunal also found that the respondent made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of £4,346.71 net. It found that the respondent breached the claimant's contract by failing to pay expenses incurred and ordered damages of £268.55.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The tribunal found the claim for failure to comply with statutory collective consultation obligations under section 188 TULRCA 1992 well founded and made a protective award of remuneration for a protected period of 90 days beginning on 25 September 2019. The judgment does not quantify this award in money. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The respondent was ordered to pay the claimant the net sum of £4,346.71 for unauthorised deduction from wages. | Upheld | — | £4,347 |
| Breach of contract | The respondent was ordered to pay £268.55 in damages for breach of contract in respect of unpaid expenses incurred by the claimant. | Upheld | — | £269 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,615
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
3 references- Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 Rule 21
- Section 188 Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- Sections 189(1)(d), (2), (3) and (4) 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.
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.