Case 3304559/2020 · Employment Tribunal

Mr S Winkworth v Marshall Motor Group Limited — 2021

Case reference: 3304559/2020
Decision date: 29 April 2021
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Tynan
Venue: Cambridge

Indexed: 19 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr S Winkworth

Respondent

Marshall Motor Group Limited

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The Claimant brought a complaint concerning the Respondent's alleged failure to comply with section 188 of the Trade Union & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.

The Tribunal held that, under section 189(1)(b) of the Act, any such complaint could only be pursued on the Claimant's behalf by the relevant employee representatives, rather than by the Claimant himself as a potentially affected employee. It concluded that it had no jurisdiction to consider the complaint and struck out the claim on the basis that it had no reasonable prospects of success.

Claims and outcomes

1 finding recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Other	Complaint concerning the Respondent's alleged failure to comply with section 188 of the Trade Union & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The Tribunal held it had no jurisdiction because, by virtue of section 189(1)(b), such a complaint could only be pursued on the Claimant's behalf by relevant employee representatives rather than by the Claimant himself as a potentially affected employee.	Struck out	—	—

Legal tests applied

3 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.

Open official judgment PDF on gov.uk

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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.