Case 3203249/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Ravenhill v Roseville Projects Ltd (in Creditors Voluntary liquidation) — 2022
- Case reference
- 3203249/2021
- Decision date
- 1 September 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge F Allen Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Ravenhill
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr M Ravenhill was employed by Roseville Projects Ltd and was dismissed as redundant on 26 February 2021, when he was told by letter that the employer was ceasing trading that day. The Respondent entered creditors voluntary liquidation on 15 March 2021.
The tribunal found that the Respondent failed to comply with its duty under s.188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 to consult with an appropriate employee representative about redundancy. On that basis, the Claimant's claim was well founded and he was entitled to a protective award.
The tribunal recorded that no mitigating circumstances had been provided to justify any reduction of the award. It therefore ordered that the Respondent pay remuneration for the protected period of 90 days, running from 26 February 2021 to 27 May 2021, although the extracted text does not state the monetary value of that remuneration.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Protective award claim for failure to comply with s.188 Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The judgment records that the Respondent failed to consult an appropriate employee representative about redundancy, that the claim was well founded, and that the Claimant was entitled to a protective award. No monetary sum is set out in the extracted text. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.188 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.