Case 2601578/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Nigel Paul Williams v JCS Cochrane Electrical Limited (In Creditors Voluntary Liquidation) — 2019
- Case reference
- 2601578/2019
- Decision date
- 26 September 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Jeram
- Venue
- Nottingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Nigel Paul Williams
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard the matter at Nottingham on 26 September 2019 before Employment Judge Jeram sitting alone. The respondent did not attend. The judgment records that judgment had already been entered against the respondent, and that the respondent’s joint liquidator would adopt a neutral position in relation to the claimant’s claims.
The claimant indicated that he sought to pursue only his claim for a protective award. The tribunal declared that the respondent had failed to comply with the requirement under section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, and found that claim well-founded.
As a remedy, the tribunal ordered the respondent to pay a protective award of remuneration for the protected period of 90 days from 29 January 2019. The amount awarded was £7,875.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trade union | The claimant pursued only a claim for a protective award. The tribunal found the respondent failed to comply with section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 and awarded a protective award for the 90-day protected period from 29 January 2019. | Upheld | — | £7,875 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £7,875
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 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.