Case 2501675/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Dover v Cleveland Bridge UK Limited (in administration) — 2022
- Case reference
- 2501675/2021
- Decision date
- 5 December 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Aspden REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Dover
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal found that the claimant's 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 her dismissal was well founded.
The Tribunal made a protective award under section 189(3) of the 1992 Act. It ordered the respondent to pay the claimant a sum equivalent to remuneration for the period of 90 days beginning on 13 August 2021.
The judgment also recorded that the Employment Protection (Recoupment of Jobseeker's Allowance and Income Support) Regulations 1996 apply to the award, with the protected period being the same 90-day period beginning on 13 August 2021. No fixed monetary amount was stated in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Claim for a protective award arising from alleged failure to comply with section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 in respect of dismissal. The award was expressed as remuneration for 90 days from 13 August 2021, not as a fixed monetary sum. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- section 189(3) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- Employment Protection (Recoupment of Jobseeker's Allowance and Income Support) Regulations 1996
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.