Case 2502159/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr B Herman and others named on the attached schedule v Harper’s Environmental Limited (in administration) — 2023
- Case reference
- 2502159/2022
- Decision date
- 15 May 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Arullendran Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr B Herman and others named on the attached schedule
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimants brought claims for a protective award under section 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, alleging a failure to consult before the respondent ceased trading on 31 August 2022. The respondent was in administration and did not file a response by the deadline. The administrators later consented to the claims proceeding in the Employment Tribunal on 30 March 2023.
The tribunal noted that the Secretary of State for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy had been notified as an interested party and had filed written representations. The judgment was entered under Rule 21 on the basis of the information provided in the ET1 form.
The tribunal found the protective award claims well-founded. It ordered the respondent to pay each claimant a protective award under section 189(3) TULRCA 1992 equivalent to remuneration for the period of 90 days beginning on 31 August 2022. The judgment also stated that the Employment Protection (Recoupment of Jobseekers Allowance and Income Support) Regulations 1996 apply to the award.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Protective award claim under section 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The tribunal made a Rule 21 judgment on the basis of the ET1 because the respondent, which was in administration, did not file a response. | Upheld | — | — |
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.