Case 2501667/2021 · Employment Tribunal

Mr Langdon v Cleveland Bridge UK Limited (in administration) — 2022

Case reference: 2501667/2021
Decision date: 5 December 2022
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Aspden REPRESENTATION

Indexed: 19 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr Langdon

Respondent

Cleveland Bridge UK Limited (in administration)

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The claimant brought a claim that the respondent failed to comply with the requirements of section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 in respect of his dismissal. The respondent and the Secretary of State did not attend the hearing.

The tribunal held that the claim was well founded. It ordered the respondent to pay a protective award equivalent to remuneration for 90 days beginning on 3 August 2021.

The judgment stated that the Employment Protection (Recoupment of Jobseeker's Allowance and Income Support) Regulations 1996 apply to the award, and set out the respondent's obligations to provide information to the Secretary of State before payment is required.

Claims and outcomes

1 finding recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Other	Protective award claim: the tribunal found the respondent failed to comply with section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 in respect of the claimant's dismissal.	Upheld	—	—

Legal tests applied

3 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.