Case 2417453/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Casual Dining Services Ltd (dissolved) — 2021
- Case reference
- 2417453/2020
- Decision date
- 20 July 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Slater
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal entered judgment under Rule 21. It found the claimants' complaint under section 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 well-founded, namely that the respondent had failed to comply with the requirements of sections 188 and 188A of the 1992 Act.
By way of protective award under section 189(3), the tribunal ordered the respondent to pay each claimant a payment equivalent to remuneration for 90 days beginning on 2 July 2020. The judgment also recorded that the Employment Protection (Recoupment of Benefits) Regulations 1996 apply to the award.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Complaint under section 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 for failure to comply with sections 188 and 188A; tribunal made a protective award equivalent to 90 days' remuneration for each claimant, but no monetary amount was specified. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 - Rule 21
- section 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- sections 188 and 188A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- section 189(3) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- Employment Protection (Recoupment of Benefits) Regulations 1996
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.