Case 2415728/2020 · Employment Tribunal

Mr N O’Reilly v Nationwide Accident Repair Services Ltd (in administration) and 1 other — 2021

Case reference: 2415728/2020
Decision date: 30 November 2021
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Dunlop Date

Indexed: 19 May 2026

Parties

3 named

Claimant

Mr N O’Reilly

Respondents

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The Tribunal determined the matter on the papers with no attendance by any party. The claimant had been employed by the first respondent in its audit function in the north west region and was dismissed by reason of redundancy on 4 September 2020.

The Tribunal found that the respondents did not fully inform and consult with the claimant in accordance with sections 188 and 188A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The claimant brought the complaint as an individual under section 189, there being no relevant employee representatives.

The Tribunal was satisfied that the claimant worked in a regional role falling within the respondent's “Head Office and Support Services” group, which formed the relevant establishment for the protective award claim, and that more than 20 people were proposed to be made redundant within that establishment. It made a protective award requiring payment of remuneration for a protected period of 90 days beginning on 4 September 2020, with no order for costs or fees.

Claims and outcomes

1 finding recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Other	The claim was for a protective award under section 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 arising from alleged failure to inform and consult under sections 188 and 188A. The locked taxonomy has no specific protective award category, so it is classified as other.	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.