Case 3201003/2023 · Employment Tribunal

Mr David Watson & others v Stanford Scaffolding Limited (in creditors' voluntary liquidation) — 2023

Case reference: 3201003/2023
Decision date: 29 September 2023
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Rea Representation

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr David Watson & others

Respondent

Stanford Scaffolding Limited (in creditors' voluntary liquidation)

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

Employment Judge Rea heard the matter by CVP at East London on 26 September 2023. The respondent did not attend. Mr Daniel Wall was joined as an additional claimant. The Tribunal identified the case as a collective redundancy consultation claim arising from dismissals by Stanford Scaffolding Limited (in creditors' voluntary liquidation).

The Tribunal made a declaration that the respondent failed to comply with its obligation under s188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 to consult about the proposal to make 20 or more employees redundant at the same establishment. It found that 40 employees were dismissed on 13 February 2023, including the 27 claimants in these proceedings.

The Tribunal then made a protective award under s190 TULR(C)A in the sum of 90 days' pay in respect of each of those 40 employees. The judgment does not state a cash total or a split monetary figure for the award, so no aggregate pound amount can be extracted from the text.

Claims and outcomes

1 finding recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Other	Collective redundancy consultation claim under s188 TULR(C)A 1992; the Tribunal made a protective award under s190 of 90 days' pay per affected employee. The judgment does not state a pound value for the award.	Upheld	—	—

Legal tests applied

2 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.

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.