Case 2502372/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Robinson v Testerworld Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2502372/2022
- Decision date
- 26 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Aspden Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Robinson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal found that the claimant's complaint that the respondent failed to comply with section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 in respect of his dismissal was well founded. It also found that the complaint was made within the time required by section 189(5) of the 1992 Act.
The Tribunal made a protective award under section 189(3) of the 1992 Act. The respondent was ordered to pay the claimant an amount equivalent to remuneration for 90 days beginning on 29 July 2022. The judgment states that the Employment Protection (Recoupment of Jobseeker's Allowance and Income Support) Regulations 1996 apply, with the protected period being the same 90-day period from 29 July 2022.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Protective award claim: the Tribunal found the respondent failed to comply with section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 in respect of the claimant's dismissal. The 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(5) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- section 189(3) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 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.