Case 2501727/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Duffield & 38 others v Speedclad Limited (in Admininstration) — 2023
- Case reference
- 2501727/2022
- Decision date
- 26 May 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sweeney Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Duffield & 38 others
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Respondent entered administration on 16 August 2022. The following day, 53 staff were made redundant, and the Claimants in this case were among those dismissed on 17 August 2022 at Thurston House, Thurston Business Park. The Tribunal recorded that there was no independent trade union recognised by the Respondent, no employee representatives were elected or invited to be elected, and no consultation or information was provided before the redundancies were announced. The Secretary of State took no side on the merits, and the Administrators later confirmed consent for the protective award claim, including the claim of Mr William Moore, whose initial omission was corrected.
Applying section 188 and section 189 TULRCA and deciding the matter under rule 21 on the papers, the Tribunal found that all of the Claimants were dismissed and that more than 20 employees were dismissed at a single establishment within a 90-day period. It accepted that there was zero consultation or advance information and that there was no basis to reduce the award below the maximum. Relying on the approach in Susie Radin Ltd v GMB & Others, the Tribunal held that a protective award was appropriate.
The judgment therefore made a protective award for the Claimants with a protected period of 90 days running from 17 August 2022. It also ordered the Respondent to pay remuneration to the Claimants for that protected period. The extracted judgment does not state a monetary sum for the award.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Protective award claim under section 189 TULRCA for failure to inform and consult on collective redundancies; the judgment does not state a split monetary amount for this claim. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
7 references- rule 21 of the Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
- section 188 Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- section 189 Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- Susie Radin Ltd v GMB & Others [2004] I.C.R. 893
- Maritime Ltd v Nautilus International [2019] IRLR 286
- Rockfon A/S v Specialarbejderforbundet i Danmark [1996] I.C.R.R 673
- Athinaiki Chartopoiia AE v Panagiotidis and others [2007] 284 ECJ
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.