Case 3204490/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Roseville (Projects) Ltd (in Creditors’ Voluntary Liquidation) and Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy — 2022
- Case reference
- 3204490/2021
- Decision date
- 1 June 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Massarella Members
- Panel members
- Mr J. Webb, Mr S. Woodhouse
Parties
2 namedKey findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was brought by Mr D. Coates-Lilywhite and 35 other claimants against Roseville (Projects) Limited (in Creditors’ Voluntary Liquidation) and the Secretary of State. The tribunal found that the effective date of termination for all 36 claimants was 26 February 2021, when they were summarily dismissed for redundancy, and that the first respondent had failed to comply with its consultation obligations under s.188, read with s.188A, of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.
The tribunal held that the claimants were entitled to a protective award and that there were no mitigating circumstances justifying any reduction of the award. It ordered the first respondent to pay remuneration for the protected period of 90 days, running from 26 February 2021 to 27 May 2021. The extracted judgment does not state a quantified monetary figure for the award.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | Protective award claim under s.188 and s.188A TULRCA 1992 for 36 claimants. The tribunal found the effective date of termination was 26 February 2021, held that the first respondent had failed to comply with its consultation obligations, found no mitigating circumstances, and ordered remuneration for a 90-day protected period ending on 27 May 2021. No quantified monetary figure was stated in the extracted judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.188 TULRCA 1992
- s.188A TULRCA 1992
- s.189 TULRCA 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.