Case 2417908/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr MH Mateparae and others (see schedules) v Herbert T. Forrest Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 2417908/2018
- Decision date
- 21 January 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Franey
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr MH Mateparae and others (see schedules)
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that, for the claimants named in schedules 1 and 2, the respondent failed to consult as required by section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. It made a protective award for a protected period of 90 days beginning on 7 December 2018 and stated that the recoupment regulations applied.
For the claimants in schedule 2 only, the tribunal recorded that the complaints about notice pay, holiday pay, arrears of pay and a redundancy payment were dismissed upon withdrawal, because those sums had already been paid. It also amended the title in case 2418099/2018 from Mr G Pickering to Mr G Picking.
The schedule 2 unfair dismissal complaints were found well founded. The tribunal held that those claimants were unfairly dismissed, but it awarded no compensation: the basic award was extinguished by the statutory redundancy payment, and it made no compensatory award because, applying Polkey v AE Dayton Services Limited, employment would have ended on 7 December 2018 in any event. The judgment did not apply to the schedule 3 claimants, whose claims remained stayed because the administrators had not consented to them proceeding.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recordedThis 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 | Protective award under sections 188 and 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The tribunal found a failure to consult for the claimants named in schedules 1 and 2 and ordered remuneration for a protected period of 90 days beginning on 7 December 2018; recoupment regulations applied. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The unfair dismissal complaints for the schedule 2 claimants were found well founded. The tribunal held they were unfairly dismissed but made no compensation award because the basic award was extinguished by the statutory redundancy payment and there was no compensatory award under Polkey. | Upheld | — | — |
| Other | The complaints about notice pay, holiday pay, arrears of pay and seeking a redundancy payment were dismissed upon withdrawal by the claimants after those sums had already been paid. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.188 TULRCA 1992
- Polkey v AE Dayton Services Limited [1988] ICR 142
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.