Case 2501550/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Debenhams Retail Limited (in Administration) — 2022
- Case reference
- 2501550/2020
- Decision date
- 1 December 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Broughton Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment recorded that the listed claimants were employed by Debenhams Retail Limited at its Middlesbrough store. The respondent entered administration on 9 April 2020, and the claimants were dismissed by reason of redundancy on 14 August 2020.
The claimants brought a complaint under section 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 seeking a protective award for failure to consult under sections 188 and 188A. The tribunal found that the claimants were assigned to an establishment where 20 or more redundancies were proposed within 90 days, and that the respondent did not fully inform and consult with them in accordance with those provisions.
The tribunal set the protected period at 90 days from 14 August 2020. It stated that protective award payments would rank as unsecured claims in the respondent's insolvency, with some payments potentially recoverable from the Redundancy Payments Service. No costs or fees order was made.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The claim was for a protective award under section 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 in respect of alleged failure to inform and consult under sections 188 and 188A. The locked taxonomy has no specific protective award category, so it is classified as other rather than redundancy_pay. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 189 Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- s.188 Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- s.188A Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 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.