Case 2601487/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Respondent — 2026
- Case reference
- 2601487/2025
- Decision date
- 4 June 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Adkinson
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal found well-founded the complaints brought by Cassandra Allen and the other 16 claimants under section 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. It found that F and M Steed Limited had failed to comply with the requirements of section 188. The company had not presented a response and was debarred from taking part; the Secretary of State for Business and Trade did not attend but provided written submissions, which the Tribunal considered with the filed evidence.
The Tribunal ordered F and M Steed Limited to pay each claimant a protective award equivalent to 90 days' remuneration beginning on 11 September 2025, identified as the dismissal date. It did not quantify the awards as monetary sums. The judgment recorded that payment is subject to the recoupment process under the Employment Protection (Recoupment of Benefits) Regulations 1996 and is stayed pending the Secretary of State's recoupment notice or notification that no notice will be served.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Each claimant's complaint under TULRCA 1992 section 189 concerning the first respondent's failure to comply with section 188 was well-founded. The protective award was 90 days' remuneration for each claimant, but no monetary amount was quantified. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- TULRCA 1992 section 188
- TULRCA 1992 section 189
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.