Case 2414553/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Nigel Thompson v Sonetik UK Ltd (In voluntary liquidation) — 2020
- Case reference
- 2414553/2019
- Decision date
- 3 August 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Phil Allen
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Nigel Thompson
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 the 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 provisions referred to in the judgment.
The Tribunal also upheld claims for unauthorised deduction from wages, breach of contract in respect of notice, breach of contract in respect of expenses incurred, and unpaid holiday entitlement. It awarded fixed sums for those four claims, but did not state a single aggregate total or a monetary figure for the protective award.
Claims and outcomes
5 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 before proposed redundancy dismissals well founded and made a protective award of 90 days' remuneration beginning on 25 September 2019; no fixed monetary sum was stated for this award. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment describes this as an unauthorised deduction from wages and awards the gross sum stated. | Upheld | — | £4,591 |
| Breach of contract | The judgment states the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awards damages in this sum. | Upheld | — | £2,885 |
| Breach of contract | The judgment states the respondent breached the claimant's contract by failing to pay expenses incurred and awards damages in this sum. | Upheld | — | £3,083 |
| Holiday pay | The judgment states the respondent failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and awards this sum. | Upheld | — | £1,683 |
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.