Case 3303982/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Gupta v Silverbird Global Ltd (in administration) — 2025
- Case reference
- 3303982/2024
- Decision date
- 12 June 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shastri-Hurst Date
- Venue
- Reading
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr V Gupta brought a claim against Silverbird Global Ltd (in administration). The tribunal found that the respondent's premises at One Canada Square, Canary Wharf, London constituted an establishment for the purposes of section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, and that there was no recognised trade union or appointed or elected employee representatives for section 188(1B).
The tribunal held that the complaint that the respondent failed to comply with section 188 was well-founded. It found that the respondent was proposing to dismiss 20 or more employees at the establishment within a period of 90 days or less, and that no consultation took place as required by section 188.
The tribunal made a protective award under section 189(3) of the Act, ordering the respondent to pay the claimant a sum equivalent to remuneration for the 90-day protected period beginning on 14 March 2024. The extracted judgment does not state a numerical amount for that award.
The unfair dismissal claim and the redundancy payment claim were both dismissed upon withdrawal.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Protective award under sections 188 and 189(3) of TULR(C)A 1992. The judgment states that the respondent's premises at One Canada Square, Canary Wharf, London constituted an establishment, that there was no recognised trade union or elected/appointed employee representatives, and that no consultation took place before proposing to dismiss 20 or more employees within 90 days or less. The award is stated as payment equivalent to remuneration for the 90-day protected period beginning 14 March 2024, but no monetary figure is given in the extracted text. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment records that the unfair dismissal claim was dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Redundancy | The judgment records that the redundancy payment claim was dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.188 TULR(C)A 1992
- s.189(3) TULR(C)A 1992
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.