Case 2501309/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Jamieson and Others Respondent (1): Engenera Renewables Limited – in administration Respondent (2): Secretary of State for Trade and Business v Respondent — 2025
- Case reference
- 2501309/2024
- Decision date
- 12 May 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Martin Representation
- Venue
- Newcastle
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr P Jamieson and Others Respondent (1): Engenera Renewables Limited – in administration Respondent (2): Secretary of State for Trade and Business
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Engenera Renewables Limited was an energy renewables company whose relevant employees were based at Gateway House, Newburn Riverside, Newcastle upon Tyne. The company entered administration after attempts to obtain finance or sell it as a going concern, and employees were dismissed by reason of redundancy in March 2024.
The tribunal found that there was one establishment where 20 employees were dismissed by reason of redundancy within the relevant period. It accepted that there was no trade union or elected employee representatives, no attempt to appoint employee representatives, no provision of information to employees, and no consultation about the redundancy situation.
The tribunal held the section 189(2) TULRCA complaints well founded and made a protective award for the scheduled employees based at Gateway House who were dismissed by reason of redundancy on or after 5 March 2024, for a protected period of 56 days. The tribunal did not accept that certain directors had proved employee status, and found that Mr Morrison and Mr Murray were not based at the Gateway House establishment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Protective award complaint under section 189(2) TULRCA was well founded for employees in the attached schedule who were based at Gateway House and dismissed by reason of redundancy on or after 5 March 2024. The judgment found some claimants were not proved to be employees or not based at the establishment, so their claims failed. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- section 188 TULRCA 1992
- section 188A TULRCA 1992
- section 189 TULRCA 1992
- sections 182-184 TULRCA 1992
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.