Case 2414550/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Craig Coxon v Sonetik UK Ltd (In voluntary liquidation) — 2020
- Case reference
- 2414550/2019
- Decision date
- 3 August 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Phil Allen
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Craig Coxon
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent did not present a response, and Employment Judge Phil Allen issued judgment under Rule 21 without a hearing on the information before the Tribunal.
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, in respect of the whole workforce employed there. 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 upheld claims for unauthorised deductions from wages, breach of contract in respect of notice, breach of contract for unpaid expenses, and unpaid holiday entitlement. It ordered payment of the specified sums for those claims, but did not state a single total award or quantify the protective award in money terms.
Claims and outcomes
5 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 well founded. Tribunal made a protective award of 90 days' remuneration beginning on 25 September 2019, but no monetary amount was specified. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Gross sum awarded for unauthorised deduction from wages. | Upheld | — | £1,950 |
| Breach of contract | Damages awarded for dismissal in breach of contract in respect of notice. | Upheld | — | £2,275 |
| Breach of contract | Damages awarded for breach of contract by failing to pay expenses incurred. | Upheld | — | £1,552 |
| Holiday pay | Sum awarded for failure to pay holiday entitlement. | Upheld | — | £2,803 |
Legal tests applied
4 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
- 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.