Case 3300901/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms M Smith v Reem Clothing Limited (in voluntary liquidation) — 2026
- Case reference
- 3300901/2024
- Decision date
- 23 January 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Alliott Representation
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms M Smith
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent failed to comply with a requirement of section 188 Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, and the tribunal held that the claimant's claim for a protective award succeeded. The award covered all employees who worked at the respondent's Establishment Unit 16, 18 Redburn Industrial Estate, Woodhall Road, Enfield, Middlesex, EN3 4LE and who were dismissed as redundant on or after 28 September 2023.
The tribunal found that there were more than 20 employees at the establishment, that the claim was presented within the statutory time limit, and that there was no recognised trade union or elected employee representatives. It also found that 20 or more employees were made redundant or were at risk of redundancy on 28 September 2023, that the claimant and other employees were dismissed without the minimum statutory consultation period, and that consultation was minimal. The protected period began on 28 September 2023 and was set at 90 days, with the Recoupment Regulations applying.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Protective award claim under section 188 Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992; no dedicated protective award claim_type exists in the locked taxonomy. | Upheld | — | — |
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.