Case 2502526/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs A Ions v Short Richardson and Forth Limited In Voluntary Liquidation — 2023
- Case reference
- 2502526/2022
- Decision date
- 4 July 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Arullendran Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs A Ions
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal entered judgment under Rule 21 because 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 that it would cease providing legal services after 30 September 2022 and proposed to dismiss 20 or more employees as redundant at its Newcastle office. 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.
On that basis, the tribunal found a breach of section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 and made a protective award in the claimant’s favour for the maximum protected period of 90 days beginning on 30 September 2022. No award was made on the redundancy payment, holiday pay, or notice pay claims because the claimant stated that she did not wish to pursue them.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Claim was for a protective award under sections 188 and 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The taxonomy does not include a dedicated protective award category. | Upheld | — | — |
| Redundancy | The claimant stated in her witness statement that she did not wish to pursue this claim; no award was made. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The claimant stated in her witness statement that she did not wish to pursue this claim; no award was made. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The judgment refers to this as a claim for notice pay. The claimant stated in her witness statement that she did not wish to pursue it; no award was made. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Rule 21 Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
- section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- section 189 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.