Case 2500970/2022 · Employment Tribunal
John Pilkington v SE-Tek Ltd (in administration) — 2023
- Case reference
- 2500970/2022
- Decision date
- 12 July 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Jeram
Parties
2 namedClaimant
John Pilkington
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment was made pursuant to rule 21. The tribunal held that the claimant's complaint under s.189 of the Trade Union & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 succeeded because the respondent failed adequately to comply with a requirement of s.188.
The claim for a protective award succeeded. The respondent was ordered to pay remuneration to John Pilkington for a protected period of 90 days beginning on 13 July 2022, identified in the judgment as the date on which dismissal took effect. The Employment Protection (Recoupment of Benefits) Regulations 1996 apply to the award.
All claims other than the protective award claim were struck out as not actively pursued. The judgment 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
2 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Protective award claim under s.189 TULRCA 1992 for failure adequately to comply with s.188 succeeded; the respondent was ordered to pay remuneration for a protected period of 90 days beginning on 13 July 2022. | Upheld | — | — |
| Other | The judgment states that all claims other than the protective award claim were struck out as not actively pursued, but the other claims are not individually identified in the judgment text. | Struck out | — | — |
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.