Case 2603310/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. M Sturgess and Mr A. Darby v Cussons Technology Limited (In Administration) — 2020
- Case reference
- 2603310/2019
- Decision date
- 15 March 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Rachel Broughton
- Venue
- Nottingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr. M Sturgess and Mr A. Darby
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Rachel Broughton sat alone at Nottingham on 13 March 2020. The claimants appeared in person and the respondent did not attend. The judgment concerns a complaint that Cussons Technology Limited (In Administration) failed to comply with section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.
The tribunal declared that complaint well founded. It made a protective award in respect of the claimants who were dismissed as redundant on or after 18 October 2019, and ordered the respondent to pay remuneration for a protected period of 90 days beginning on 18 October 2019. The written judgment does not state a monetary figure for the award.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Complaint that the respondent failed to comply with section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The tribunal made a protective award in respect of the claimants dismissed as redundant on or after 18 October 2019, ordering remuneration for a protected period of 90 days beginning on that date. No monetary amount was stated in the judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 188 of the 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.