Case 2500656/2020 · Employment Tribunal

Miss C Lamb & Others First v Laidlaw Limited (in Administration) Second Respondent: Secretary of State for Business , Energy & Industrial Strategy — 2020

Case reference: 2500656/2020
Decision date: 2 October 2020
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Johnson RULE
Venue: Newcastle Hearing Centre

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Miss C Lamb & Others First

Respondent

Laidlaw Limited (in Administration) Second Respondent: Secretary of State for Business , Energy & Industrial Strategy

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The tribunal sat under Rule 21 and considered applications for protective awards brought by Miss C Lamb and others against Laidlaw Limited (in Administration) and the Secretary of State for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy. It found that, in respect of each of the claims listed in the schedule, the first respondent failed to comply with section 188 or section 188A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, and it held the complaint well founded.

The tribunal ordered the first respondent to pay remuneration calculated in accordance with section 190 of TULRCA 1992 to the employees named in the schedule who were dismissed on or after 17 January 2020 before the protected period. It identified the protected period as running from 17 January 2020 to 17 May 2020.

The judgment also noted that the Employment Protection (Recruitment of Jobseekers Allowance and Income Support) Regulations 1996 applied. It recorded that regulation 6 imposes a duty to provide information to the Secretary of State and that regulations 7 and 8 postpone the award to enable a recruitment notice to be served. No monetary sum is stated in the extracted text.

Claims and outcomes

1 finding recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Other	Protective award claim under section 188 or section 188A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The tribunal found the complaint well founded for each claimant listed in the schedule and ordered remuneration under section 190, but the extracted text does not set out any monetary amount.	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.