Case 2501655/2023 · Employment Tribunal

Mr M K Nurk & others (see attached schedule) v Respondent — 2025

Case reference: 2501655/2023
Decision date: 10 January 2025
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Robertson

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

1 named

Claimant

Mr M K Nurk & others (see attached schedule)

Respondent

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

Regional Employment Judge Robertson, sitting in chambers, held that the claimants' complaints under section 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 were well-founded. The judgment records that the respondent failed to comply with the requirements of section 188 or section 188A of the 1992 Act as to collective consultation.

The tribunal ordered that each claimant receive a protective award under section 189(3) of the 1992 Act for remuneration for the period of 90 days beginning on 6 April 2023, which was the date on which the first of the dismissals to which the complaints related took effect. The extracted judgment does not state a separate monetary sum for the award.

The tribunal also recorded that the Employment Protection (Recoupment of Benefits) Regulations 1996 apply to the award.

Claims and outcomes

1 finding recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Other	Complaint under s.189 TULRCA 1992 that the respondent failed to comply with the collective consultation requirements in s.188 or s.188A. The tribunal made a protective award for each claimant; the extracted text gives the award period but does not state a cash figure.	Upheld	—	—

Legal tests applied

4 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

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.

Open official judgment PDF on gov.uk

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.