Case 2504334/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Rachel Hudspith v Lakemere Global Holdings Ltd t/a AGO Outsourcing (In Creditors Voluntary Liquidation) — 2020
- Case reference
- 2504334/2019
- Decision date
- 12 June 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sweeney
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Rachel Hudspith
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal noted that the claim had been served on the Respondent and that no response was returned. It therefore decided the matter on the available material under rule 21 of the Tribunal Rules of Procedure.
The Tribunal found that Ms Hudspith was employed at the Respondent’s Newcastle premises, that the establishment employed more than 20 people, and that more than 20 employees were dismissed as redundant on or about 13 September 2019. It further found that there was no prior notice of the business ceasing to operate, no consultation about possible redundancies, and no appropriate representative at the workplace.
On that basis, the Tribunal held that there had been a wholesale failure to inform and consult on the redundancies and that a protective award should be made for the maximum period of 90 days. The protected period began on 13 September 2019. The judgment orders payment of remuneration for that protected period but does not quantify the sum in money terms.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Protective award claim under section 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The judgment orders remuneration for the protected period but does not state a monetary amount. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 188 Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- section 189 Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- rule 21 of the Tribunal Rules of Procedure
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.