Case 2601777/2020 · Employment Tribunal

Mrs L Stripling (formerly Tustin) v v Oasis Fashions Limited (in administration) — 2022

Case reference: 2601777/2020
Decision date: 18 July 2022
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Hawksworth Date

Indexed: 19 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mrs L Stripling (formerly Tustin) v

Respondent

Oasis Fashions Limited (in administration)

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The tribunal found the claimant's complaint well-founded. It held that the respondent had failed to comply with the requirements of section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.

The judgment records that the claimant was assigned to carry out her duties in a unit comprising six branches, in which the respondent proposed to dismiss more than 20 employees. The tribunal made a protective award in favour of the claimant for the maximum protected period of 90 days beginning on 15 April 2020.

The award was expressed as a payment equivalent to remuneration for that 90-day period. The judgment also stated that the Employment Protection (Recoupment of Jobseeker's Allowance and Income Support) Regulations 1996 applied, and set out steps concerning recoupment before payment would be required.

Claims and outcomes

1 finding recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Other	The claim was a complaint of failure to comply with section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, resulting in a protective award. The locked taxonomy has no specific protective award or collective consultation category, so this is classified as other rather than redundancy_pay.	Upheld	—	—

Legal tests applied

3 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.

Open official judgment PDF on gov.uk

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.