Case 2501495/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Dutton v Testerworld Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2501495/2022
- Decision date
- 27 July 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Aspden Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Dutton
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal gave a Rule 21 judgment because the respondent had not presented a response and the judge considered the complaint could be determined on the available material. The respondent company's administrators had consented to the claim continuing.
The tribunal found that, as at 9 May 2022, the respondent was proposing to dismiss as redundant 20 or more employees assigned to the Rokeby Court, Runcorn depot within a period of 90 days or less. The claimant was an affected employee and was dismissed as redundant on 9 May 2022.
The tribunal found that there were no recognised independent trade union representatives or other employee representatives with authority to receive information and be consulted, and that the respondent did not invite affected employees to elect representatives for section 188 purposes. It found no special circumstances making compliance not reasonably practicable, held the section 189 complaint well founded, and made a protective award for the maximum protected period of 90 days beginning on 9 May 2022.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Complaint under section 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 that the respondent failed to comply with section 188 collective consultation requirements in respect of the claimant's dismissal; protective award made for 90 days' remuneration, but no monetary amount stated. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 188 Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- section 189 Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- GMB v Susie Radin Ltd [2004] EWCA Civ 180
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.