Case 2600739/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S. Singh & others (see schedule) v Greenshires Group Limited (In Administration) — 2024
- Case reference
- 2600739/2024
- Decision date
- 23 September 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Broughton JUDGMENT
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S. Singh & others (see schedule)
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal entered a Rule 21 judgment because the respondent did not serve a response. The claimants were employed at one site at 164 Barkby Road, Leicester, and the Tribunal accepted evidence that on 23 February 2024 the administrators announced that their employment was terminated with immediate effect on the grounds of redundancy.
The Tribunal found that in February 2024 the respondent proposed to dismiss as redundant 20 or more employees at that site, with the first dismissal taking effect on 23 February 2024. It found there was no proper warning or consultation with a recognised trade union, no consultation with the claimants, and no elected or appointed employee representatives, so the respondent breached section 188 of the 1992 Act.
The Tribunal made a protective award under section 189 in favour of the claimants for the maximum protected period of 90 days commencing on 23 February 2024. The recoupment regulations were stated to apply.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trade union | Protective award claim under sections 188 and 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The judgment awarded 90 days' remuneration from 23 February 2024 but did not state a monetary amount. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals 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.