Case 2501486/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Tanya Butler-Henderson (First Claimant) Ms Dianne Lawton (Second Claimant) Ms Tracey Maughan (Third Claimant) Ms Kellie Vale (Fourth Claimant)
Employment Judge Shore dealt with the claimants' applications on 12 April 2022. The hearing followed Employment Judge Johnson's judgment of 25 June 2021, which had found that the first respondent failed to comply with section 188 or section 188A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 and that the claims covered by that judgment were well-founded. The later proceedings were brought because the first respondent was in liquidation and the claimants said the protective awards had not been paid and/or that the second respondent had not paid the correct amount under its obligation to pay 8 weeks' pay.
For Ms Butler-Henderson, the tribunal found average weekly pay of £220.00 and calculated a protective award of 12.86 weeks' pay, £2,829.20. For Ms Lawton, it found average weekly pay of £324.74 and calculated a protective award of £4,176.16. The judgment recorded that the first respondent had failed wholly and the second respondent partly to comply with the protective award; it also recorded the second respondent's capped liability at 8 weeks' pay, £1,760.00 and £2,597.92 respectively, and that sums had already been paid so a balance remained outstanding.
The claims of Ms Maughan and Ms Vale failed. The judgment also stated that the Employment Protection (Recoupment of Jobseekers Allowance and Income Support) Regulations 1996 apply, including the duties to provide information and the recoupment notice process.
This 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 sections 188/188A and 192 TULRCA 1992. The tribunal found average weekly pay of £220.00 and calculated a protective award of 12.86 weeks' pay, £2,829.20. It noted the second respondent's liability was capped at 8 weeks' pay (£1,760.00) and that £564.08 had already been paid. | Upheld | — | £2,829 |
| Other | Protective award claim under sections 188/188A and 192 TULRCA 1992. The tribunal found average weekly pay of £324.74 and calculated a protective award of 12.86 weeks' pay, £4,176.16. It noted the second respondent's liability was capped at 8 weeks' pay (£2,597.92) and that a sum had already been paid, leaving a balance outstanding. | Upheld | — | £4,176 |
| Other | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
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.