Case 3300698/2022 · Employment Tribunal

Mr B Branson & Others v North Essex Electrical Limited (In Liquidation) — 2022

Case reference: 3300698/2022
Decision date: 31 August 2022
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Postle Date

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr B Branson & Others

Respondent

North Essex Electrical Limited (In Liquidation)

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

In the multiple claim brought by Mr B Branson and others against North Essex Electrical Limited (in liquidation), Employment Judge Postle declared that the complaint that the respondent failed to comply with section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 was well founded. The tribunal found that a protective award should be paid to the affected employees at all affected sites who were dismissed as redundant on 1 October 2021.

The tribunal fixed the protected period at 90 days beginning with the date of dismissal and ordered remuneration for that period under section 190(2) of the 1992 Act. The judgment states that the claimants are to be paid 90 days' pay per affected employee; no separate monetary sum is specified in the judgment text provided.

Claims and outcomes

1 finding recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Trade union	The tribunal held that the complaint under section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 was well founded and made a protective award. The judgment orders 90 days' pay per affected employee under section 190(2), but no single monetary amount is specified in the text.	Upheld	—	—

Legal tests applied

2 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.

Open official judgment PDF on gov.uk

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.