Case 2500586/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr PW Webster v Tolent Construction Limited “In Administration” — 2024
- Case reference
- 2500586/2023
- Decision date
- 26 June 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Arullendran Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr PW Webster
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought a claim for a protective award after the respondent entered administration. The respondent initially defended the claim but later amended its response to say it was no longer defending it, and the judgment was entered without a hearing under Rule 21.
The Tribunal found that the respondent proposed to dismiss as redundant 20 or more employees at the Gateshead site and that there was no proper warning or consultation with a recognised trade union, the claimant, or elected or appointed employee representatives. The claim under section 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 was well-founded.
The Tribunal ordered a protective award equivalent to 90 days' remuneration. The judgment states that the recoupment regulations apply and that payment is not required until the respondent receives a recoupment notice or confirmation that no notice 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 failure to comply with section 188 collective consultation requirements. The judgment awarded 90 days' remuneration but did not state a monetary amount. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
- section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- section 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 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.