Case 3304901/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Hagger & Others v Jarvis Contracting Ltd (in liquidation) and 1 other — 2024
- Case reference
- 3304901/2023
- Decision date
- 27 June 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Foxwell Date
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr C Hagger & Others
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal found that the claimants worked at the same establishment at 1 Waterside, Station Road, Harpenden and were made redundant on or after 28 February 2023. It found that 20 or more employees at the establishment were made redundant or placed at risk of redundancy within the relevant 90-day period, and that the claimants were dismissed during that period without consultation.
The first respondent, which was in administration, had not filed a response, but its administrators acknowledged that there had been no consultation about redundancies and consented to the claims proceeding. The second respondent filed a response to assist the Tribunal only and had no direct knowledge of events.
The Tribunal held that the respondent had failed to comply with section 188 of the Trade Union & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 and that the protective award claim succeeded. It made a protective award for remuneration for a protected period beginning on 28 February 2023 and lasting 90 days, with the Recoupment Regulations applying.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trade union | The judgment describes this as a claim for a protective award for failure to comply with section 188 of the Trade Union & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. It awards remuneration for a 90-day protected period but does not quantify a monetary amount. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 188 of the Trade Union & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- section 189(5)(b) of the Trade Union & 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.