Case 2500933/2022 · Employment Tribunal
James Davies v SE-Tek Ltd (in administration) — 2023
- Case reference
- 2500933/2022
- Decision date
- 12 July 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Jeram
Parties
2 namedClaimant
James Davies
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Jeram gave judgment pursuant to rule 21. The claimant's complaint under s.189 of the Trade Union & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 succeeded on the basis that the respondent failed adequately to comply with a requirement of s.188. The claim for a protective award also succeeded.
The respondent was ordered to pay remuneration to the claimant for a protected period of 90 days beginning on 13 July 2022, the date on which dismissal took effect. The judgment records that the Employment Protection (Recoupment of Benefits) Regulations 1996 apply to the award, but it does not state a monetary total.
All other claims were struck out as not actively pursued. The judgment also records that neither the consent of the Administrator nor the permission of the court had been obtained for the proceedings to be instituted or continued as required by the Insolvency Act 1986.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Protective award claim under s.189 of the Trade Union & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 for failure adequately to comply with s.188 succeeded. The judgment ordered remuneration for a protected period of 90 days but did not state a monetary amount. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Struck out as not actively pursued; the judgment states all other claims apart from the protective award were struck out. | Struck out | — | — |
| Redundancy | Struck out as not actively pursued; the judgment states all other claims apart from the protective award were struck out. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Struck out as not actively pursued; the judgment states all other claims apart from the protective award were struck out. | Struck out | — | — |
| Working time regulations | Struck out as not actively pursued; the judgment states all other claims apart from the protective award were struck out. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- rule 21
- s.189 Trade Union & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- s.188 Trade Union & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- Employment Protection (Recoupment of Benefits) Regulations 1996
- Insolvency Act 1986
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.