Case 2501679/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Roberts v Cleveland Bridge UK Limited (in administration) — 2022
- Case reference
- 2501679/2021
- Decision date
- 5 December 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Aspden REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Roberts
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 his dismissal was well founded.
The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay a protective award under section 189(3) of the 1992 Act, equivalent to remuneration for 90 days beginning on 4 August 2021. No specific monetary amount was stated in the judgment.
The judgment recorded 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 under the protective award becomes due.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The claim was for failure to comply with section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, with a protective award ordered. The locked taxonomy has no specific protective award category, so this is classified as other rather than redundancy_pay. | 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.