Case 3205550/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Leach v John Anthony Signs Limited (in creditors voluntary liquidation) — 2022
- Case reference
- 3205550/2021
- Decision date
- 17 February 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Russell Representation
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Leach
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr D Leach brought a claim for a protective award after his dismissal on 14 May 2021, when John Anthony Signs Limited entered liquidation. The tribunal recorded that more than 20 employees were made redundant and that no collective consultation had been undertaken. A letter from the liquidator confirmed that the respondent had been advised to cease trading with immediate effect on 14 May 2021 because it was insolvent.
Employment Judge Russell found that the respondent had failed to comply with its obligations under ss.188 and 188A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 in relation to consultation with employee representatives. The judgment noted that in other claims arising from the same facts, Employment Judge Barrowclough had already ordered a 90-day protected period from 14 May 2021 to 12 August 2021.
Having regard to the file, Judge Russell was satisfied that the claimant was also entitled to a protective award for the same 90-day period. On the basis of a daily rate of £77.50, the tribunal awarded £6,975.00, representing 90 days' remuneration for the protected period.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trade union | Protective award for failure to comply with collective consultation obligations under ss.188 and 188A TULRCA 1992. | Upheld | — | £6,975 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £6,975
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- ss.188 and 188A 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.