Case 2418504/2020 · Employment Tribunal

Mr G Mather v Nationwide Accident Repair Services Ltd (in administration) and 1 other — 2021

Case reference: 2418504/2020
Decision date: 3 December 2021
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Dunlop Date

Indexed: 18 May 2026

Parties

3 named

Claimant

Mr G Mather

Respondents

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The Tribunal determined the matter on the papers with no attendance by any party. It found that the claimant was employed by the first respondent at its Swinton site 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 Swinton site was an establishment at which the respondent proposed to make 20 or more redundancies, and the claimant brought the complaint as an individual under section 189 because there were no relevant employee representatives.

The Tribunal made a protective award in the claimant's favour and ordered the respondent to pay remuneration for a protected period of 90 days beginning on 4 September 2020. It made no order for costs or fees and stated that the judgment did not affect the claimant's unfair dismissal claim, which remained stayed.

Claims and outcomes

1 finding recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Other	Protective award under sections 188, 188A and 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The judgment states that the unfair dismissal claim remains stayed and is not affected by this judgment.	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.

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.