Case 3305464/2024 · Employment Tribunal

Ms Victoria Toms & Others v Saietta Group plc (in administration) and 1 other — 2024

Case reference: 3305464/2024
Decision date: 9 September 2024
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Foxwell Date

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

3 named

Claimant

Ms Victoria Toms & Others

Respondents

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

This was a judgment by consent in a collective redundancy consultation case. The tribunal declared, under section 189(2) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, that Saietta Group PLC had failed to comply with the requirements of section 188. The claimants were listed in Schedule A, and the award covered the dismissals that took place on 4 March 2024.

By consent, the tribunal ordered a protective award of 80 days' pay in respect of the listed claimants. The judgment states that any payment made by the company, rather than the Secretary of State, would be paid as an unsecured dividend, subject to the normal categories of preferential debts in Schedule 6 of the Insolvency Act 1986.

The tribunal made no order as to costs. It also recorded that the Employment Protection (Recoupment of Jobseeker's Allowance and Income Support) Regulations 1996 apply to the award.

Claims and outcomes

1 finding recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Other	Judgment by consent under section 189(2) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The tribunal declared that the respondent failed to comply with section 188 and ordered a protective award of 80 days' pay for the listed claimants from the date of dismissal, 4 March 2024.	Upheld	—	—

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.