Case 2600464/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr David Carrington v R1) Acumen Technical Ltd (in voluntary liquidation) R2) The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy — 2022
- Case reference
- 2600464/2022
- Decision date
- 21 December 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hutchinson
- Venue
- Nottingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr David Carrington
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a full hearing in Nottingham on 16 December 2022, before Employment Judge Hutchinson sitting alone, neither party appeared. The tribunal dealt with a complaint that the first respondent had failed to comply with section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.
The tribunal held that complaint to be well founded. It found that Mr David Carrington had been employed at the first respondent's premises at 3 Trent Lane, Weston on Trent, Derby, and had been dismissed as redundant on 30 November 2021 as an Electrical Engineer.
The tribunal made a protective award in respect of Mr Carrington and ordered the first respondent to pay remuneration for a protected period of 90 days beginning on 30 November 2021. The written record does not state a monetary figure for that remuneration, and it notes that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trade union | The judgment finds the complaint under section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 well founded and makes a protective award. The written record does not state a monetary sum for the award. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.188 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.