Case 2418104/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Debenhamd Retail Ltd (In Administration) — 2023
- Case reference
- 2418104/2020
- Decision date
- 10 July 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Broughton Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimants were employed by Debenhams Retail Limited at its Trafford Centre, Manchester store. The respondent entered administration on 9 April 2020 and joint administrators were appointed. The claimants were dismissed by reason of redundancy on 14 August 2020. They brought a complaint under section 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 seeking a protective award for failure to consult.
The tribunal found that the claimants were assigned to an establishment where 20 or more redundancies were proposed within a period of 90 days. It held that the respondent did not fully inform and consult with the claimants in accordance with sections 188 and 188A of the 1992 Act. The protected period was set at 90 days from the date of the first dismissal, 14 August 2020.
The judgment records that the protective award payments will rank as unsecured claims in the respondent's insolvency, although some may be wholly recoverable from the Redundancy Payments Service. It also states that there is no order for costs or fees, and that the judgment applies only to the listed claimants. Any other claims intimated in the claim forms were to stand dismissed automatically after 14 days unless the claimant specified an outstanding claim and provided administrator consent within that time.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trade union | Complaint under s.189 TULRCA 1992 for a protective award arising from failure to consult under s.188 and s.188A. The judgment does not state a separate monetary sum. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.188 TULRCA 1992
- s.188A TULRCA 1992
- s.189 TULRCA 1992
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.