Case 2502515/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss J Averill v Short Richardson and Forth Limited In Voluntary Liquidation — 2023
- Case reference
- 2502515/2022
- Decision date
- 4 July 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Arullendran Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss J Averill
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal determined under Rule 21 that the claimant's claim for a protective award was well-founded. The respondent had proposed to dismiss 20 or more employees as redundant after informing staff on 5 September 2022 that it would cease providing legal services after 30 September 2022, and the claimant was dismissed on 31 October 2022.
The tribunal found there had been no proper warning or consultation with a recognised trade union or with the claimant, and no employee representatives had been elected or appointed for consultation under section 188A. On that basis, the respondent was in breach of its duty under section 188 of the 1992 Act.
The tribunal therefore made the maximum protective award under section 189: remuneration for a protected period of 90 days beginning on 30 September 2022. It made no award for pension contributions because that matter was being dealt with separately by Clumber Consultancy.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment upheld a claim under sections 188 and 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 for failure to conduct collective consultation, and made a protective award for 90 days' remuneration. No monetary figure was stated. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 188 TULRCA 1992
- section 189 TULRCA 1992
- Rule 21 Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
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.