Case 2501810/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. C. Wilkinson and others v Empire Cinemas Limited (in liquidation) — 2024
- Case reference
- 2501810/2023
- Decision date
- 22 May 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge T.R. Smith
- Venue
- Newcastle upon Tyne
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr. C. Wilkinson and others
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that the complaints listed in schedule 1 were well-founded under section 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 because the respondent had failed to comply with section 188. Those claimants were therefore awarded a protective award. The tribunal specified a protective period beginning on 7 July 2023 and lasting for 90 days.
The tribunal also held that the complaints listed in schedule 2 were not well-founded under the same statutory provisions and were dismissed. The written record states that the tribunal did not quantify the protective award as requested by the Secretary of State for Business and Trade.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The schedule 1 claimants' complaints under section 189 TULRCA 1992 for failure to comply with section 188 were found well-founded. The tribunal awarded a protective award but did not quantify it. | Upheld | — | — |
| Other | The schedule 2 claimants' complaints under section 189 TULRCA 1992 for failure to comply with section 188 were found not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 188 TULRCA 1992
- section 189 TULRCA 1992
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.