Case 2501234/2024 · Employment Tribunal

Mr M Blight v Surgo Construction Limited “In Administration” — 2025

Case reference: 2501234/2024
Decision date: 4 March 2025
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Arullendran Date

Indexed: 21 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr M Blight

Respondent

Surgo Construction Limited “In Administration”

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

Mr M Blight brought a claim for a protective award after Surgo Construction Limited entered administration on 14 March 2024. The tribunal recorded that in March 2024 the respondent proposed to dismiss as redundant 20 or more employees at its Albany Court site, with the total number of proposed redundancies being in the region of 46. The first dismissal took effect on 13 March 2024.

The tribunal found that there had been no proper warning or consultation with the 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 was in breach of section 188 of the 1992 Act and awarded a protective award under section 189 for the maximum protected period of 90 days beginning on 13 March 2024.

The case was determined on the papers under rule 21 because the respondent filed no response, and the administrator stated that they did not intend to admit or defend the claim and consented to protective award claims proceeding. The judgment also directed that the Employment Protection (Recoupment of Jobseeker's Allowance and Income Support) Regulations 1996 applied, and explained the information the respondent had to provide to the Secretary of State for recoupment purposes.

Claims and outcomes

1 finding recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Other	Protective award claim for breach of the collective consultation duty under section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The tribunal made an award under section 189(3) for the maximum protected period of 90 days beginning on 13 March 2024, but the extracted text does not state the monetary value of the award.	Upheld	—	—

Legal tests applied

6 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.

Open official judgment PDF on gov.uk

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.