Case 3201156/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Zykov v Silverbird Global Limited (in administration) — 2025
- Case reference
- 3201156/2024
- Decision date
- 22 May 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge E Gordon Walker
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Zykov
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal recorded that the administrator had consented to the commencement of proceedings for claims by individuals for a protective award. It also recorded that the claimant had been permitted to amend his claim to add a protective award claim and had been granted an extension of time to bring it.
The Tribunal found that the respondent's premises at Level 39, One Canada Square constituted an establishment for the purpose of s188 of TULR(C)A, and that there was no recognised trade union or appointed or elected employee representatives for the purpose of s188(1B). The complaint that the respondent failed to comply with a requirement of s188 was upheld, and a protective award equivalent to 90 days' remuneration from 14 March 2024 was ordered.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment upheld a complaint that the respondent failed to comply with a requirement of s188 of TULR(C)A and made a protective award. The locked claim_type enum has no specific protective award or collective consultation category. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s188 of TULR(C)A
- s188(1B) of TULR(C)A
- section 18(3) of TULR(C)A
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.