Case 2414554/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Amanda Britland v Sonetik UK Ltd (In voluntary liquidation) — 2020
- Case reference
- 2414554/2019
- Decision date
- 4 August 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Phil Allen
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Amanda Britland
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent did not present a response to the claims. On the information before the 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 in respect of the whole workforce employed there. The claim for failure to consult was therefore well founded.
The Tribunal made a protective award in respect of the claimant and ordered the respondent to pay remuneration to her for a protected period of 90 days beginning on 25 September 2019. The judgment also stated that the Employment Protection (Recoupment of Jobseeker’s Allowance and Income Support) Regulations 1996 apply to the protective award.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Claim for failure to comply with statutory collective consultation obligations before proposed redundancy dismissals; judgment made a protective award of remuneration for a protected period of 90 days, but no monetary sum was stated. | Upheld | — | — |
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.