Case 3305547/2023 · Employment Tribunal

Mr P Fanning v Qube Qualifications and Development Limited (in Creditors Voluntary Liquidation) and 1 other — 2025

Case reference: 3305547/2023
Decision date: 21 February 2025
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Shastri-Hurst Date

Indexed: 16 May 2026

Parties

3 named

Claimant

Mr P Fanning

Respondents

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The Tribunal upheld the complaint that the respondent (Qube Qualifications and Development Limited, in Creditors Voluntary Liquidation) failed to comply with the collective consultation requirements of s188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 in respect of its Abingdon premises, where there was no recognised trade union or appointed or elected employee representatives. A protective award was made in favour of the claimant for the protected period of 90 days (12.86 weeks) beginning on 28 March 2023, calculated at £6,140.14.

The complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages was found to be well-founded in respect of the period 1 to 28 March 2023, and the respondent was ordered to pay the claimant the gross sum of £1,909.84, with the claimant responsible for tax and National Insurance. Credit is to be given for sums paid by the Redundancy Payments Service in relation to unpaid wages.

The claim for expenses, brought as a breach of contract claim, failed because the claimant had not provided details of the claim within the time directed by the Tribunal and therefore had not proved it.

Claims and outcomes

3 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Other	Protective award under s188 TULR(C)A 1992 for failure to comply with collective consultation requirements; protected period of 90 days (12.86 weeks) from 28 March 2023.	Upheld	—	£6,140
Unlawful deduction from wages	Unauthorised deduction from wages for the period 1 to 28 March 2023; gross sum, claimant responsible for tax/NI. Credit to be given for sums paid by the Redundancy Payments Service.	Upheld	—	£1,910
Breach of contract	Claim for expenses failed: claimant did not provide details within the time given by the Tribunal and therefore did not prove the claim.	Dismissed	—	—

Remedy

Monetary award

Total award: £8,050; across all upheld claims

Legal tests applied

2 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.