Case 3202653/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr I Rothwell & others v Westex Ltd and 1 other — 2020
- Case reference
- 3202653/2019
- Decision date
- 13 October 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Burgher Appearances
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr I Rothwell & others
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal recorded Mr I Rothwell 3202653/2019 as the new lead case under rule 36 of the 2013 ET rules, with related cases attached in a schedule. The respondents did not appear at the hearing.
The Tribunal found that 125 employees at Westex Limited's Bow Road location and 70 employees at its Harlow location were entitled to declarations that Westex Limited failed to inform or consult them in respect of redundancies taking place within a 90-day period. Those employees were entitled to protective awards.
No reason was advanced to mitigate the protective award period. The Tribunal considered it just and equitable to award the maximum period of 90 days, with the protected period beginning on 19 September 2019.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trade union | The judgment declared that Westex Limited failed to inform or consult employees in respect of redundancies and made protective awards for employees at the Bow Road and Harlow locations. The award is stated as a 90-day protective award period, not a monetary sum. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 36 of the 2013 ET rules
- just and equitable
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.