Case 3306062/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Mirel Marian Cretu v First Respondent: Patrick James Long, William Stephen Long & the personal — 2025
- Case reference
- 3306062/2024
- Decision date
- 17 June 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Skehan Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Mirel Marian Cretu
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal found that 20 or more employees at the Lutton Farm establishment were placed at risk of redundancy on or within 90 days of 11 April 2024. There was no recognised trade union or elected employee representative, and the employees were dismissed during that period contrary to the statutory collective-consultation requirements. Mr Cretu was dismissed as redundant on 3 May 2024. His protective-award claim against the First to Fifth Respondents succeeded, and the Tribunal ordered remuneration for a 90-day protected period beginning on 11 April 2024. The Recoupment Regulations apply. The Tribunal found no reason to depart from the principle that a protective award should cover the maximum period unless circumstances make that unjust.
The Tribunal also found that Mr Cretu was entitled to a statutory redundancy payment and had not been paid his wages from 8 April 2024. It awarded £3,111.42 as a statutory redundancy payment, £1,450 in wage arrears, £371.70 in unpaid taken holiday pay, and £3,111.42 for the statutory notice period. These quantified sums are payable jointly and severally by the First to Fifth Respondents.
Lutton Farms Limited, which was in voluntary liquidation, was added as the Fifth Respondent under Rule 22. The claims determined in this judgment succeeded against the First to Fifth Respondents. The claim against the Sixth Respondent, the Secretary of State, was not determined and was to be listed for a case management hearing.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Protective award under sections 188 and 189 TULRCA 1992 against the First to Fifth Respondents. The protected period was 90 days beginning on 11 April 2024; the judgment did not quantify the resulting remuneration. | Upheld | — | — |
| Redundancy | Statutory redundancy payment, payable jointly and severally by the First to Fifth Respondents. | Upheld | — | £3,111 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Arrears of pay for the period beginning 8 April 2024, payable jointly and severally by the First to Fifth Respondents. | Upheld | — | £1,450 |
| Holiday pay | Unpaid taken holiday pay, payable jointly and severally by the First to Fifth Respondents. | Upheld | — | £372 |
| Wrongful dismissal | The judgment described this as a well-founded claim for failure to pay statutory notice pay and awarded payment for the statutory notice period, payable jointly and severally by the First to Fifth Respondents. | Upheld | — | £3,111 |
Legal tests applied
3 references- sections 188 and 189 TULRCA 1992
- section 189(5)(b) TULRCA 1992
- maximum-period principle for protective awards unless circumstances make it just not to do so
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.