Case 2415336/2021 · Employment Tribunal

Mr G Pendlebury and Others (see attached schedule) v A & D Joinery Limited (in administration) and 1 other — 2022

Case reference: 2415336/2021
Decision date: 21 June 2022
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Ross

Indexed: 18 May 2026

Parties

3 named

Claimant

Mr G Pendlebury and Others (see attached schedule)

Respondents

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The Tribunal gave judgment under Rule 21. It found that the complaints brought by Mr G Pendlebury and the other claimants listed in the schedule, under section 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, were well founded. The complaint was that the first respondent failed to comply with the requirements of section 188 of the 1992 Act.

The Tribunal ordered the first respondent, A & D Joinery Limited (in administration), to pay each listed claimant a protective award under section 189(3) of the 1992 Act. The award was payment equivalent to remuneration for 90 days beginning on 29 September 2021.

The judgment stated that the Employment Protection (Recoupment of Benefits) Regulations 1996 apply, and included the standard recoupment particulars concerning information to be provided to the Secretary of State and the treatment of any recoupment notice.

Claims and outcomes

1 finding recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Other	Complaints under section 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 that the first respondent failed to comply with section 188 were found well founded. The remedy was a protective award equivalent to 90 days' remuneration beginning on 29 September 2021, but no monetary sum was stated.	Upheld	—	—

Legal tests applied

4 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.

Open official judgment PDF on gov.uk

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.