Case 3304454/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Symm & Company Ltd (in liquidation) and Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy — 2021
- Case reference
- 3304454/2020
- Decision date
- 3 June 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Anstis
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningIn a Rule 21 judgment, Employment Judge Anstis recorded that Symm & Company Limited (in liquidation), the first respondent, did not wish to make any submissions on the protective award claims. The tribunal considered the claimants' evidence and the written submissions from the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy.
The tribunal found that the first respondent had failed to comply with sections 188 and 188A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 in respect of each claimant named in the appendix, which listed 125 claimants. Each such claimant was therefore entitled to a protective award.
The tribunal ordered the first respondent to pay remuneration for a protected period beginning on 5 February 2020 and lasting for 90 days. The judgment does not set out a single monetary total or individual cash figures in the supplied text.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | Protective award under sections 188 and 188A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992; the judgment applies to the 125 claimants named in the appendix. No lump-sum cash amount is stated in the text supplied, only remuneration for a protected period. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 21 of Schedule 1 to the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
- sections 188 and 188A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 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.