Case 3305624/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs D Calver & Others (see attached schedule) v English Architectural Glazing Limited (In Administration) — 2026
- Case reference
- 3305624/2025
- Decision date
- 20 March 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Foxwell Date
Parties
3 namedMrs D Calver & Others (see attached schedule)
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimants were employed at the First Respondent's establishment in Mildenhall, Suffolk, and were dismissed as redundant on or after 30 May 2025. Twenty or more employees were made redundant or placed at risk of redundancy within 90 days of that date. There was no recognised trade union or elected employee representatives at the establishment, and the dismissals occurred without consultation. The Tribunal found that the First Respondent had failed to comply with the consultation requirements of section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 and that the protective-award claim under section 189 succeeded.
The claims were presented within the time limit at section 189(5)(b) of the 1992 Act. The Tribunal saw no reason to depart from the principle that protective awards are punitive and should be for the maximum period unless circumstances make it just not to do so. It ordered the employer to pay each claimant remuneration for a 90-day protected period beginning on 30 May 2025. The Recoupment Regulations apply.
Claims and outcomes
1 claim adjudicated| Claim type | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 referencesSource document
Primary recordThe full judgment is available 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.