Case 2502518/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs J Brinkworth v Short Richardson and Forth Limited In Voluntary Liquidation — 2023
- Case reference
- 2502518/2022
- Decision date
- 4 July 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Arullendran Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs J Brinkworth
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal entered judgment under Rule 21 because the respondent did not file a response, and the liquidator had informed the tribunal that he did not intend to admit or defend any claim. The tribunal proceeded on the basis of the information provided by the claimant.
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 at its Newcastle office. 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.
On that basis, the tribunal held that the respondent had breached section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. It therefore made a protective award under section 189 for the maximum protected period of 90 days beginning on 30 September 2022. No award was made for redundancy pay, notice pay or holiday pay because the claimant did not wish to pursue those claims, and no award was made for pension contributions because that issue was said to be dealt with by Clumber Consultancy.
Claims and outcomes
5 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 | Protective award claim under section 189 of TULRCA 1992 for failure to comply with section 188 collective consultation requirements. The tribunal ordered payment equivalent to 90 days' remuneration from 30 September 2022, but did not quantify the sum in the judgment text. | Upheld | — | — |
| Redundancy | The claimant stated in her witness statement that she did not wish to pursue this claim. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Breach of contract | No award was made in respect of notice pay because the claimant stated she did not wish to pursue that claim. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The claimant stated in her witness statement that she did not wish to pursue this claim. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Breach of contract | No award was made in respect of outstanding pension contributions because the judgment states that issue was being dealt with by Clumber Consultancy. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- section 188 TULRCA 1992
- section 188A TULRCA 1992
- section 189 TULRCA 1992
- Rule 21 Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
- Employment Protection (Recoupment of Jobseeker's Allowance and Income Support) Regulations 1996
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.