Case 2601660/2023 · Employment Tribunal
MR D BRAMLEY AND MR E J BOGDANIEC Claimants v S&P REALISATIONS 2023 LIMITED (IN ADMINISTRATION) Respondent — 2024
- Case reference
- 2601660/2023
- Decision date
- 30 May 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Victoria Butler
Parties
2 namedClaimant
MR D BRAMLEY AND MR E J BOGDANIEC Claimants
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a judgment by consent. The tribunal recorded that the respondent had failed to adequately comply with section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, and the protective award claim under section 189 succeeded. The judgment noted that the redundancies were made immediately after the appointment of joint administrators because of the company’s financial position.
The tribunal also recorded that, before the administrators were appointed, employees had been kept fully informed about the company’s precarious financial position, but that this did not amount to formal redundancy consultation. On that basis, the tribunal ordered the respondent to pay remuneration for a protected period of 90 days beginning on 3 July 2023, the date the first dismissals to which the complaint related took effect.
The judgment further stated that any payments made by the respondent rather than the Secretary of State pursuant to the judgment would be paid as an unsecured dividend, subject to the normal categories of preferential debts under Schedule 6 of the Insolvency Act 1986. The tribunal made no order as to costs and directed that each party bear their own costs.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Protective award claim under sections 188 and 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, determined by consent. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 188 TULRCA 1992
- section 189 TULRCA 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.