Case 2500907/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs V Fox v Surgo Construction Limited “In Administration” — 2025
- Case reference
- 2500907/2024
- Decision date
- 4 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Arullendran Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs V Fox
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal found that the respondent proposed to dismiss as redundant 20 or more employees at its Albany Court site in March 2024, with the first dismissal taking effect on 13 March 2024. The respondent had entered administration and did not file a response; the administrator said the claim would not be admitted or defended and consented to protective award claims proceeding.
The Tribunal found that there was no proper warning or consultation with a recognised trade union or with the claimant before 13 March 2024, and that no employee representatives had been elected or appointed for consultation under section 188A of the 1992 Act. It held that the respondent breached the duty under section 188 and made a protective award for the maximum protected period of 90 days from 13 March 2024.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trade union | The judgment upheld a claim for failure to comply with section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 and made a protective award for 90 days' remuneration, but did not quantify the monetary amount. | 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
- Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
- Rule 22 of the Employment Tribunals Procedure Rules 2024
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.