Case 3205304/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Christopher Downs v John Anthony Signs Limited (in creditors voluntary liquidation) and 1 other — 2022
- Case reference
- 3205304/2021
- Decision date
- 19 January 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Burgher Appearances
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr Christopher Downs
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that the claimant's effective date of termination was 14 May 2021. The respondent did not attend the remote hearing.
The tribunal found that the First Respondent failed to comply with its obligations under ss.188 and 188A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 concerning the duty to consult employee representatives. It held that it was just and equitable for the First Respondent to pay remuneration for the protected period of 90 days, from 14 May 2021 to 12 August 2021.
The First Respondent was ordered to pay the claimant £8,654.40, calculated as 90 days at a daily rate of £96.16. The Second Respondent was added to the proceedings pursuant to section 184(2)(d) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 to pay the protective award debt.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Protective award for failure to comply with collective consultation obligations under ss.188 and 188A Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992; classified as other because the locked taxonomy has no protective award category. | Upheld | — | £8,654 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £8,654
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- ss.188 & 188a Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- section 184(2)(d) Employment Rights Act 1996
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.