Case 2502517/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr PJ Bell v Short Richardson and Forth Limited In Voluntary Liquidation — 2023
- Case reference
- 2502517/2022
- Decision date
- 4 July 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Arullendran Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr PJ Bell
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal entered judgment under Rule 21 after no response was received from the respondent. The respondent had entered voluntary liquidation, and the liquidator informed the tribunal that he did not intend to admit or defend any claim.
The tribunal found that on 5 September 2022 the respondent informed employees it would cease providing legal services after 30 September 2022 and proposed to dismiss 20 or more employees as redundant between 30 September and 30 November 2022. It 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 within section 188A.
Despite those findings, the claimant's section 189 claim was dismissed because he had resigned on 19 September 2022, before 30 September 2022, which the tribunal identified as the first day on which the respondent was proposing to dismiss 20 or more employees as redundant. The tribunal also made no award in respect of pension contributions because that issue was being dealt with by Clumber Consultancy.
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 tribunal dismissed the claimant's section 189 TULRCA claim for failure to comply with section 188 because he resigned on 19 September 2022, before the first proposed redundancy dismissal took effect on 30 September 2022. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The judgment states that no award was made in respect of outstanding pension contributions because that matter was being dealt with by Clumber Consultancy; the judgment does not identify the legal basis of this claim. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- section 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- section 188A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- Rule 21 of the 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.