Case 2501012/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Stephen Bowman v SE-Tek Ltd (in administration) — 2023
- Case reference
- 2501012/2022
- Decision date
- 12 July 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Jeram
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Stephen Bowman
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, proceeding under rule 21, upheld Stephen Bowman’s complaint under s.189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 that SE-Tek Ltd failed adequately to comply with s.188. It found the claim for a protective award succeeded and ordered remuneration for a protected period of 90 days beginning on 13 July 2022, the date on which dismissal took effect.
The judgment states that the Employment Protection (Recoupment of Benefits) Regulations 1996 apply to the award. It also records that all other claims, apart from the protective award claim, were struck out as not actively pursued. The tribunal further noted 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
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trade union | Complaint under s.189 TULRCA 1992 that the respondent failed to comply with s.188 TULRCA 1992; protective award made for a protected period of 90 days beginning on 13 July 2022. No monetary amount is stated in the extracted text. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- rule 21
- s.188 TULRCA 1992
- s.189 TULRCA 1992
- Insolvency Act 1986
- Employment Protection (Recoupment of Benefits) Regulations 1996
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.