Case 2501796/2021 · Employment Tribunal

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

Case reference: 2501796/2021
Decision date: 5 December 2022
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Aspden REPRESENTATION

Indexed: 19 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr Laws

Respondent

Cleveland Bridge UK Limited (in administration)

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The 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 3 August 2021. No fixed monetary sum was stated in the judgment.

The judgment also recorded that the Employment Protection (Recoupment of Jobseeker's Allowance and Income Support) Regulations 1996 applied to the award, and set out the respondent's information obligations and the timing of payment following any recoupment notice or notification from the Secretary of State.

Claims and outcomes

1 finding recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Other	Claim for a protective award based on failure to comply with section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992; no more specific locked taxonomy category is available.	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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.