Case 3302938/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Reeve & Others v Lowestoft Electrical co. Limited (in administration) and 1 other — 2023
- Case reference
- 3302938/2024
- Decision date
- 12 December 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Foxwell Date
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr M Reeve & Others
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal found that the claimants worked at the respondent's establishment at Service House, Wildes Street, Lowestoft, Suffolk, and were dismissed as redundant on or after 12 December 2023. It found that 20 or more employees at that establishment were made redundant or placed at risk of redundancy on or within 90 days of 12 December 2023, and that there was no recognised trade union or elected employee representatives.
The Tribunal found that the claimants were dismissed during that period without any consultation having taken place, and that their claims were presented within the statutory time limit. The first respondent had not filed a response, but its administrators consented to the claim proceeding; the second respondent filed a response only to assist the Tribunal and had no direct knowledge of events.
The Tribunal held that the first respondent had failed to comply with section 188 of the Trade Union & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 and that the claim for a protective award succeeded. It made a protective award for remuneration for a protected period beginning on 12 December 2023 and lasting 90 days, with the Recoupment Regulations applying.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Claim for a protective award under section 188 of the Trade Union & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The locked taxonomy has no protective award category, so classified as other rather than redundancy_pay. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 188 of the Trade Union & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- principle that 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.