Case 2415107/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss M Courtney & others (see attached schedule) v Pure Claims Support Services Limited (In Administration) and 1 other — 2022
- Case reference
- 2415107/2021
- Decision date
- 31 October 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ross Date
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Miss M Courtney & others (see attached schedule)
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment was given under Rule 21. The tribunal found the claimants' complaint under section 180 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, alleging failure by the first respondent to comply with section 188, was well founded.
The tribunal ordered the first respondent, by way of a protective award, to pay Miss M Courtney and the other claimants listed in the schedule remuneration for 90 days beginning on 2 November 2021. The award applied to the listed claimants who were dismissed for redundancy on that date.
The tribunal stated that the Employment Protection (Recoupment of Benefits) Regulations 1996 applied and included the standard annex addressing recoupment obligations and payment mechanics.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Complaint under section 180 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 alleging failure by the first respondent to comply with section 188. The tribunal made a protective award of 90 days' remuneration beginning 2 November 2021 for the listed claimants dismissed for redundancy on that date; no monetary amount was specified. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Rule 21
- section 180 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- section 188 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.