Case 2414548/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr David MacDonald v Sonetik UK Ltd (In voluntary liquidation) — 2020
- Case reference
- 2414548/2019
- Decision date
- 3 August 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Phil Allen
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr David MacDonald
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent did not present a response to the claims. On the information before the Employment Judge, 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, subject to the recoupment regulations.
The Tribunal also found that the respondent made an unauthorised deduction from wages, dismissed the claimant in breach of contract in respect of notice, and breached contract by failing to pay expenses incurred. It ordered payment of £3,616.93 gross for wages, £2,975 for notice damages, and £285.32 for expenses.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Claim for failure to comply with statutory collective consultation obligations under section 188 TULRCA 1992 was found well founded. A protective award was made for 90 days' remuneration beginning on 25 September 2019, but the judgment did not quantify that award in money. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The respondent was ordered to pay the gross sum of £3,616.93 for unauthorised deduction from wages. | Upheld | — | £3,617 |
| Breach of contract | The claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice, and damages of £2,975 were awarded. | Upheld | — | £2,975 |
| Breach of contract | The respondent breached the claimant's contract by failing to pay expenses incurred, and damages of £285.32 were awarded. | Upheld | — | £285 |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 - Rule 21
- Section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- Sections 189(1)(d), (2), (3) and (4) 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.
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.