Case 2415386/2021 · Employment Tribunal

Ms N Walker & Others (see schedule) v PFP Energy Limited (in Administration) and 1 other — 2023

Case reference: 2415386/2021
Decision date: 13 June 2023
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Franey

Indexed: 19 May 2026

Parties

3 named

Claimant

Ms N Walker & Others (see schedule)

Respondents

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The tribunal granted permission for Ms Demi Brown's claim form to be amended to include, in the alternative, a claim as an employee representative under section 189(1)(b) of the Trade Union & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.

Ms Brown's employee representative claim succeeded. The tribunal found that PFP Energy Limited failed in its duty to inform and consult employee representatives under section 188 and made a protective award requiring the first respondent to pay remuneration for a protected period of 90 days from 1 October 2021 to all 52 affected employees, including the scheduled claimants.

The tribunal dismissed all other scheduled claims because they were brought by claimants in their individual capacity under section 189(1)(d) and the claimants did not have standing to bring such claims. The judgment also stated that the recoupment regulations apply to the protective award.

Claims and outcomes

2 findings recorded

This case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Other	Ms Demi Brown's claim as an employee representative under section 189(1)(b) of the Trade Union & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 succeeded. The tribunal made a protective award for failure to inform and consult employee representatives under section 188.	Upheld	—	—
Other	All scheduled claims other than Ms Demi Brown's employee representative claim were brought under section 189(1)(d) by claimants in their individual capacity and were dismissed because the claimants did not have standing to bring them.	Dismissed	—	—

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.

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.