Case 2600761/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr G Ward and 30 others v H.Beardsley Limited (in administration) and 1 other — 2022
- Case reference
- 2600761/2022
- Decision date
- 8 July 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Adkinson
- Venue
- Considered
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr G Ward and 30 others
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal considered the claim on the papers under Rule 21 after the first respondent failed to present a response. The administrators had consented to the claim continuing despite the first respondent's administration, and the tribunal considered the second respondent's response and the claimant's email of 9 June 2022 as a schedule of loss.
The tribunal found that the claimant and 20 or more other employees worked at a single establishment at Unit 2 Common Road, Huthwaite, and were dismissed summarily on 31 January 2022 because of redundancy. It found that before dismissal the first respondent did not consult with the claimant, the other employees, any relevant trade union, or elected employee representatives in accordance with TULRCA.
Applying sections 188 and 189 of TULRCA and Susie Radin v GMB, the tribunal noted that no mitigating circumstances had been advanced for the failure to consult. It held the complaints well-founded and ordered the first respondent to pay a protective award equivalent to 90 days' remuneration from 31 January 2022 to those employees at the establishment who were dismissed that day for redundancy.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trade union | The tribunal found complaints under TULRCA section 189 for failure to comply with collective consultation requirements under section 188 were well-founded and made a protective award equivalent to 90 days' remuneration. The judgment does not state a monetary amount. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- TULRCA sections 188 and 189
- Susie Radin v GMB [1994] ICR 893 CA
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.