Case 2501331/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr David Sanger v Clifford Chapman Staircases Limited (c/o the Liquidator) Interested Party: Secretary of State for Business and Trade — 2024
- Case reference
- 2501331/2023
- Decision date
- 11 March 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Loy Appearances
- Venue
- Newcastle CFCTC
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr David Sanger
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment on an application for a protective award. Employment Judge Loy found that Clifford Chapman Staircases Limited had failed to comply with the requirements placed on it under section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The claim was therefore well founded.
The tribunal ordered a protective award under section 189(3) TULRA 1992 equivalent to remuneration for the period of 90 days beginning on 10 February 2023. The written record also notes that the Employment Protection (Recoupment of Job Seekers Allowance and Income Support) Regulations 1996 apply, and that Regulation 6 imposes a duty on the respondent to provide information to the Secretary of State.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trade union | The tribunal found the respondent had failed to comply with s.188 TULRA and made a protective award under s.189(3) for a period of 90 days beginning on 10 February 2023. The judgment does not state a monetary amount. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.188 TULRA 1992
- s.189(3) TULRA 1992
- Employment Protection (Recoupment of Job Seekers Allowance and Income Support) 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.