Case 2502523/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr PM Earnshaw v Short Richardson and Forth Limited In Voluntary Liquidation — 2023
- Case reference
- 2502523/2022
- Decision date
- 4 July 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Arullendran Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr PM Earnshaw
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal entered judgment under Rule 21 after no response was received from the respondent. The liquidator had informed the tribunal that he did not intend to admit or defend any claim.
The tribunal found that on 5 September 2022 the respondent told employees it would cease providing legal services after 30 September 2022 and proposed to dismiss 20 or more employees at its Newcastle office as redundant. The first dismissal took effect on 30 September 2022 and the last on 30 November 2022.
The tribunal found there was 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. It therefore held that the respondent was in breach of section 188 of the 1992 Act and made the maximum protective award of 90 days' remuneration beginning on 30 September 2022.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The tribunal upheld a claim under section 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 for failure to comply with section 188 collective consultation requirements, and made a 90-day protective award. No monetary sum was quantified in the judgment text. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- section 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 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.