Case 3300169/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Cook v Knights of Old Limited (in administration), and 1 other — 2025
- Case reference
- 3300169/2025
- Decision date
- 7 October 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Foxwell Date
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr D Cook
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal had previously made a protective award in favour of the claimant on 20 September 2024, with the consent of the first respondent's administrators. The claimant's gross weekly pay at the date of dismissal was £665.00, entitling him to £8,551.90 of remuneration during the protected period, of which £5,320.00 had already been paid on account by the Secretary of State for Business and Trade.
The parties were given an opportunity to show cause why judgment should not be entered against the first respondent for the unpaid balance. No representations were received. The Tribunal accordingly entered judgment against the first respondent (Knights of Old Limited, in administration) for the outstanding balance of £3,231.90, with the Recoupment Regulations applied.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | Protective award claim under TULRCA following collective redundancy. The first respondent was ordered to pay the unpaid balance of remuneration due during the protected period; Recoupment Regulations apply. The gov.uk listing categorises this as a Protective Award; the closest §4.4 enum is redundancy_pay (no dedicated protective_award enum exists). | Upheld | — | £3,232 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,232
- across all upheld claims
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.