Case 3304460/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr I Samoila v Burgess Marine Limited (In Administration) and 1 other — 2019
- Case reference
- 3304460/2018
- Decision date
- 3 September 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hawksworth
- Venue
- Reading
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr I Samoila
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought a claim for a protective award under sections 188/189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. He said he worked for the first respondent as a Welder Fabricator from 14 December 2015 until his dismissal for redundancy on 13 December 2017, and that more than 20 employees were dismissed for redundancy at the Portsmouth and Porchester sites without information and consultation under section 188.
The first respondent initially defended the claim, stating that only 18 employees were at the Porchester site, but later informed the tribunal that neither the company nor the joint administrators objected to the claimant proceeding and that the matter would not be contested. The tribunal accepted the claimant's uncontested evidence and found that the first respondent was under a duty to comply with section 188 and had failed to do so.
The tribunal concluded that it was just and equitable to make a protective award for a protected period of 90 days. Using the weekly pay figure of £944.95, the tribunal awarded £12,152.06.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Protective award claim under sections 188/189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992; classified as other because the locked taxonomy has no protective award category. | Upheld | — | £12,152 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £12,152
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
3 references- s188 Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- s189 Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- just and equitable
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.