Case 3300956/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr E Karaselvi & others (see schedule attached) v Reaction Engines Ltd (In Administration) — 2024
- Case reference
- 3300956/2025
- Decision date
- 31 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Foxwell Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr E Karaselvi & others (see schedule attached)
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal entered judgment by consent that the respondent had failed to comply with a requirement of section 188 of the Trade Union & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The claim for a protective award succeeded.
The claimants worked at the respondent's Building F5, Culham Science Centre establishment and were dismissed as redundant on or after 31 October 2024. The Tribunal found that there was no recognised trade union or elected employee representatives, that 20 or more employees were made redundant or placed at risk within the relevant period, and that the claimants were dismissed without consultation.
The Tribunal made a protective award for remuneration for a protected period beginning on 31 October 2024 and lasting 90 days. The respondent was in administration and had not filed a response to the claim.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Protective award claim under section 188 of the Trade Union & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The taxonomy has no specific protective award category. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 188 of the Trade Union & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- protective awards are punitive and should be for the maximum period unless there are circumstances making it just not to do so
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.