Case 2601562/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Luke Payne Mr Dean Payne v Welbeck House Limited (in liquidation) and 1 other — 2023
- Case reference
- 2601562/2022
- Decision date
- 30 May 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Victoria Butler
- Venue
- Nottingham
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr Luke Payne Mr Dean Payne
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal found that although the claims were presented out of time, it had jurisdiction because it was not reasonably practicable for them to have been presented in time and they were presented within a reasonable period thereafter.
The Tribunal found that the first respondent failed to comply with the requirements of sections 188 to 190 of the Trade Union & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 in relation to the claimants. The claimants' protective award claims therefore succeeded.
The first respondent was ordered to pay remuneration to both claimants for a protected period of 90 days beginning on 30 April 2020. The judgment states that the Employment Protection (Recoupment of Jobseeker's Allowance and Income Support) Regulations 1996 apply, but it does not state a monetary total.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Claims for a protective award succeeded. The locked taxonomy has no separate protective award category, so this is classified as other. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- not reasonably practicable
- s.188-190 of the Trade Union & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- Employment Protection (Recoupment of Jobseeker's Allowance and Income Support) Regulations 1996
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.