Case 2601804/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Chiswell and others v Debenhams Retail Ltd (in Administration) — 2022
- Case reference
- 2601804/2020
- Decision date
- 17 November 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Broughton Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimants, all employed at Debenhams Retail Ltd’s Leicester, St Peters Lane store, were dismissed by reason of redundancy on or after 31 May 2020 after the respondent entered administration on 9 April 2020. They brought a complaint under s.189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 seeking a protective award for failure to consult in accordance with ss.188 and 188A.
The tribunal found that the claimants were assigned to an establishment where 20 or more redundancies were proposed within a 90-day period and that the respondent did not fully inform and consult with them as required. It held that the protected period should be 56 days from the date of the first dismissal, 31 May 2020. The judgment applies only to the listed claimants.
The tribunal recorded that any other claims intimated in the claim forms would stand dismissed automatically 14 days after the date of the order unless a claimant wrote in specifying an outstanding claim and providing administrator consent within that time. It also made no order for costs or fees, with each party to bear its own costs and fees.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Protective award claim under s.189 TULRCA 1992 for failure to inform and consult under ss.188 and 188A; the tribunal held the protected period should be 56 days from 31 May 2020. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.189 TULRCA 1992
- s.188 TULRCA 1992
- s.188A 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.