Case 3301112/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Miss S Baker & others v Hochanda Global Limited (In Administration) and 1 other — 2025
- Case reference
- 3301112/2025
- Decision date
- 21 August 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Foxwell Date
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Miss S Baker & others
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal found that the claimants were employed at the respondent's establishment at Nene House, Nene Valley Business Park, The Old Quarry, Oundle, Peterborough, and were made redundant on 25 October 2024. There was no recognised trade union or elected employee representatives at the establishment, and 20 or more employees were made redundant or placed at risk of redundancy on or within 90 days of that date.
The Tribunal found that the claimants were dismissed during this period without any consultation having taken place. The first respondent had not filed a response, but its administrators consented to the protective award claim proceeding, and the second respondent asked the Tribunal to scrutinise the claim while stating that it had no direct knowledge of events.
The Tribunal held that the respondent had failed to comply with section 188 of the Trade Union & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. It made a protective award requiring the employer to pay remuneration for a protected period beginning on 25 October 2024 and lasting 90 days, with the Recoupment Regulations applying.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trade union | Claim for a protective award succeeded because the respondent failed to comply with a requirement of section 188 of the Trade Union & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 188 of the Trade Union & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- section 189(5)(b) 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.