Case 3212734/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr B Ruddy Ms K Jarosz v Casual Dining Services Ltd (dissolved) and 1 other — 2021
- Case reference
- 3212734/2020
- Decision date
- 17 December 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Russell
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr B Ruddy Ms K Jarosz
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Las Iguanas, Braintree was the relevant establishment for collective consultation purposes. It accepted that 23 employees at that establishment, including both claimants, were made redundant on 2 July 2020.
There had been discussion shortly before 24 June 2020 about elections for employee representatives, but no elections took place. The tribunal found there was no elected representative or trade union representative, so the First Claimant had standing to bring the claim as an affected employee.
The tribunal found there was no effective consultation at all before the redundancies. Taking into account the importance of consultation and the total failure to consult, it made a protective award for the full 90-day protected period from 2 July 2020. The First Claimant's average weekly net wage was found to be £315.89 and his average daily net wage £63.18, but the tribunal had no pay or service information for the Second Claimant or the other affected employees.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Claim for a protective award under sections 188 and 189 of TULR(C)A 1992. The tribunal made a protective award for all 23 employees made redundant at Las Iguanas, Braintree, with a protected period of 90 days from 2 July 2020. The judgment gives the First Claimant's average weekly and daily net wage but does not calculate a monetary award. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.188 TULR(C)A 1992
- s.189 TULR(C)A 1992
- Susie Radin Limited v GMB [2004] EWCA Civ 180
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.