Case 2415702/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms A Walls Ms G Picton Mr M Heston Mr K Iyanda Rawlinson Mr C Charlesworth Mr D Priestley Miss C Fallon Ms S Hamer Ms G Thomas v Widnes Services Limited (in creditors voluntary liquidation) and 1 other — 2021
- Case reference
- 2415702/2020
- Decision date
- 8 July 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shotter
- Panel members
- Ms C Bowman, Mr I Taylor
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Ms A Walls Ms G Picton Mr M Heston Mr K Iyanda Rawlinson Mr C Charlesworth Mr D Priestley Miss C Fallon Ms S Hamer Ms G Thomas
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimants brought complaints seeking a protective award under s.188(1) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 against Widnes Services Limited, which was in creditors voluntary liquidation, and the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy.
The Tribunal found that the complaints were not presented within the period of three months beginning with the effective date of termination of employment. It was satisfied that it had been reasonably practicable for the complaints to have been presented within that period. On that basis, the Tribunal held that it did not have jurisdiction to consider the complaints and dismissed them.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment describes the claim as a complaint for a protective award under s.188(1) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The locked taxonomy has no protective award category, so it is classified as other rather than redundancy_pay. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.188(1) Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- reasonably practicable
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.