Case 2500402/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs J Robson and others as named on the attached schedule v Tolent Construction Limited “In Administration” — 2024
- Case reference
- 2500402/2023
- Decision date
- 24 April 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Arullendran Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs J Robson 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 the administrator filed responses stating that the claims would not be defended and agreeing to the lifting of the moratorium so that the protective award claims only could proceed. The Secretary of State for Business and Trade was joined as an interested party under Rule 96.
The Tribunal found that in February 2023 the respondent proposed to dismiss as redundant 20 or more employees at Derwent House, Lakeside Court, 5th Avenue Business Park, Team Valley, Gateshead, with the first dismissal taking effect on 13 February 2023. It found that there was no proper warning or consultation with a recognised trade union or the claimants, no consultation with the claimants, and no elected or appointed employee representatives for consultation within 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' claims under section 189 were well-founded. It made a protective award for the maximum protected period of 90 days commencing on 13 February 2023, equivalent to remuneration for that period for the claimants named in the schedule. No specific monetary total was recorded.
The judgment was entered without a hearing under Rule 21 because the respondent had indicated that it did not wish to defend the claims. The Employment Protection (Recoupment of Jobseekers Allowance and Income Support) Regulations 1996 apply, and the respondent is not required to make payment until it receives a recoupment notice or notification that none will be served.
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 alleged failure to comply with collective consultation requirements under section 188 of the 1992 Act. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- section 188A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- section 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
- Rule 96 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution & Rules of Procedure) Regulations 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.