Case 3301665/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Ms A Lumley & Others (see attached schedule) v Patch (Windsor) Limited (In Creditors Voluntary Liquidation) and 1 other — 2025
- Case reference
- 3301665/2025
- Decision date
- 7 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Foxwell Date
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Ms A Lumley & Others (see attached schedule)
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal found that the respondent failed to comply with a requirement of section 188 of the Trade Union & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The claimants worked at the respondent's establishment at 84 High Street, Southend on Sea and were made redundant on 7 January 2025.
The Tribunal found that there were no recognised trade union or elected employee representatives at the establishment, and that 20 or more employees were made redundant or placed at risk of redundancy on or within 90 days of 7 January 2025. The dismissals occurred without any consultation having taken place, and the claims were presented within the statutory time limit.
The Tribunal made a protective award requiring the employer to pay remuneration for a protected period beginning on 7 January 2025 and lasting 90 days. The judgment states that the Recoupment Regulations apply, but it does not state a monetary total.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment states that the claim for a protective award succeeds. The locked taxonomy has no protective_award claim type, and no specific monetary amount is stated. | 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.