Case 2601825/2021 · Employment Tribunal

Mr P Woollands Mr A Bellamy Mr S Dean Mr L Tidmarsh Mr G Dolan Mr M Dolan Mr G Bull Mr C Hand Mr G Green Mr D Atkins Mr P Jones Mr A Huxtable Mr G Taylor Mr N Peregreen v GBM MANUFACTURING LIMITED (In administration) Heard: In chambers — 2022

Case reference: 2601825/2021
Decision date: 1 March 2022
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Clark

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr P Woollands Mr A Bellamy Mr S Dean Mr L Tidmarsh Mr G Dolan Mr M Dolan Mr G Bull Mr C Hand Mr G Green Mr D Atkins Mr P Jones Mr A Huxtable Mr G Taylor Mr N Peregreen

Respondent

GBM MANUFACTURING LIMITED (In administration) Heard: In chambers

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

This was a rule 21 determination on written materials only, with no ET3 response from the respondent. Employment Judge Clark found that each of the 14 claimants was an employee of GBM Manufacturing Limited and that the respondent operated from a single establishment at Northedge Business Park in Alfreton Road, Derby. The business entered administration on 3 August 2021 and all 70 employees at the establishment were dismissed as redundant on 4 August 2021. The judge found that the dismissals were made without notice and without any prior warning or consultation.

Claims and outcomes

1 finding recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Other	Protective award claim under s.189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, brought by the 14 named claimants; the tribunal found the s.188 consultation duty was not complied with and ordered the maximum 90-day protected period.	Upheld	—	—

Legal tests applied

4 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.