Ms D Harrop v Travel And Financial Services Ltd and 1 other — 2022

The Tribunal gave judgment under rule 21 because the first respondent had not presented a response, the Official Receiver confirmed the protective award claims would not be contested, and the High Court had granted permission for the claim to proceed despite the first respondent's compulsory liquidation.

The Tribunal found that the claimant was employed by the first respondent at the Metro Centre retail store in Gateshead, where the first respondent employed over 20 employees. The first respondent went into compulsory liquidation on 23 September 2019, the Official Receiver was appointed at 1:47am, and the claimant was notified that her employment was terminated with immediate effect.

The Tribunal found there had been no proper warning, notice or consultation with recognised trade unions or with the claimant, and no employee representatives had been elected or appointed for consultation under section 188A of the 1992 Act. It held that the first respondent was in breach of section 188 and made the maximum protective award of 90 days' remuneration from 23 September 2019, subject to the recoupment regulations.