Case 2500365/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Lamb and others as named on the attached schedule v Tolent Construction Limited “In Administration” — 2024
- Case reference
- 2500365/2023
- Decision date
- 24 April 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Arullendran Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Lamb and others as named on the attached schedule
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimants brought claims for a protective award after 13 February 2023. The respondent entered administration on 13 February 2023, and responses filed through the administrator stated that the respondent did not intend to defend the claims and agreed to the lifting of the moratorium to allow the protective award claims only to proceed. The Secretary of State for Business and Trade was joined as a Rule 96 party.
The Tribunal found that in February 2023 the respondent proposed to dismiss as redundant 20 or more employees at Cleveland House, Dukes Court, Teesside Industrial Estate, Thornaby, Stockton on Tees, with the first dismissal taking effect on 13 February 2023. It found there was no proper warning or consultation with a recognised trade union or the claimants, and that no employee representatives had been elected or appointed for consultation under section 188A of the 1992 Act.
The Tribunal held that the respondent was in breach of the duty under section 188 of the 1992 Act and that the claimants' section 189 claims were well-founded. It made a protective award for the maximum protected period of 90 days beginning on 13 February 2023, equivalent to remuneration for that period, in favour of the claimants named in the schedule. No specific monetary total was stated.
The judgment was entered without a hearing under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013 because the respondent did not wish to defend the claims. The Employment Protection (Recoupment of Jobseekers Allowance and Income Support) Regulations 1996 apply, and the respondent was directed to provide claimant information to the Secretary of State before payment under the protective award would be required.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Protective award claim under section 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 for failure to comply with section 188 collective consultation requirements. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- section 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- section 188A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
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.