Case 3304218/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss A Humphreys v Qube Qualifications and Development Limited (in Creditors Voluntary Liquidation) and 1 other — 2025
- Case reference
- 3304218/2023
- Decision date
- 1 July 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shastri-Hurst Date
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Miss A Humphreys
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal found that the respondent's premises at Bee House, 140 Eastern Avenue, Milton Park, Abingdon constituted an establishment for the purposes of section 188 TULR(C)A. It also found that there was no recognised trade union and no appointed or elected employee representatives for the purposes of section 188(1B). The complaint that the respondent failed to comply with a requirement of section 188 was upheld, and a protective award was made for 90 days' remuneration beginning on 28 March 2023.
The Tribunal also found the claimant's breach of contract complaint about notice pay to be well-founded and awarded £1,576.76, equivalent to four weeks' pay based on net weekly pay of £394.19. It found the expenses breach of contract complaint well-founded and awarded £209.10. The judgment states that credit is to be given for sums paid by the Redundancy Payments Service in relation to notice pay.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Protective award under section 189(3) TULR(C)A for failure to comply with section 188 TULR(C)A; award stated as remuneration for 90 days beginning on 28 March 2023, not converted to a monetary figure in the judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Notice pay claim; damages equivalent to 4 weeks' pay calculated using net pay of £394.19 per week. Credit is to be given for sums paid by the Redundancy Payments Service in relation to notice pay. | Upheld | — | £1,577 |
| Breach of contract | Expenses claim; damages for breach of contract relating to payment of expenses. | Upheld | — | £209 |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s188 TULR(C)A
- s188(1B) TULR(C)A
- s189(3) TULR(C)A
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.