Case 2414557/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Stacey-Rose Wells v Sonetik UK Ltd (In voluntary liquidation) — 2020
- Case reference
- 2414557/2019
- Decision date
- 4 August 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Phil Allen
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Stacey-Rose Wells
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment was issued under Rule 21 because the respondent had not presented a response to the claims. On the information before the Judge, 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 Tribunal made a protective award in respect of the claimant and ordered the respondent to pay remuneration for a protected period of 90 days beginning on 25 September 2019. It also found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages and that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice.
The respondent was ordered to pay £1,357.14 gross for the unauthorised deduction from wages and £1,583.33 damages for breach of contract. The protective award was subject to the Employment Protection (Recoupment of Jobseeker's Allowance and Income Support) Regulations 1996, and the judgment recorded that payment under that award was not required until the respondent received either a recoupment notice or notification that no such notice would be served.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The Tribunal found the respondent failed to comply with statutory collective consultation obligations under section 188 TULRCA 1992 and made a protective award for a protected period of 90 days beginning on 25 September 2019. The judgment does not quantify the protective award as a monetary sum. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The Tribunal found an unauthorised deduction from wages and ordered payment of the gross sum of £1,357.14. | Upheld | — | £1,357 |
| Breach of contract | The Tribunal found dismissal in breach of contract in respect of notice and ordered damages of £1,583.33. | Upheld | — | £1,583 |
Legal tests applied
4 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
- 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.