Case 3305298/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Colin Fisher v Qube Qualifications and Development Limited (in Creditors Voluntary Liquidation) and 1 other — 2025
- Case reference
- 3305298/2023
- Decision date
- 6 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shastri-Hurst Date
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Colin Fisher
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal found that the respondent's premises at Bee House, 140 Eastern Avenue, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxfordshire, OX14 4SB constituted an establishment for the purposes of s188 TULR(C)A. It also found there was no recognised trade union or appointed or elected employee representatives for the purposes of s188(1B) TULR(C)A.
The complaint that the respondent failed to comply with a requirement of s188 TULR(C)A was upheld. The Tribunal made a protective award in favour of the claimant and ordered payment of remuneration for a protected period of 90 days beginning on 28 March 2023, in the sum of £6,306.29.
The Tribunal also found the complaint for breach of contract regarding expenses to be well founded. It ordered the respondent to pay £156.08 as damages for breach of contract.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Protective award: the Tribunal upheld the complaint that the respondent failed to comply with a requirement of s188 TULR(C)A and ordered remuneration for a 90-day protected period. | Upheld | — | £6,306 |
| Breach of contract | The complaint for breach of contract regarding expenses was found well founded. | Upheld | — | £156 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £6,462
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- s188 TULR(C)A
- s188(1B) 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.