Case 3306079/2020 · Employment Tribunal

Mr G Carr & Others v Bertram Trading Limited and 1 other — 2022

Case reference: 3306079/2020
Decision date: 4 November 2022
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge M Warren Representation

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

3 named

Claimant

Mr G Carr & Others

Respondents

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

At Norwich on 1 November 2022, Employment Judge M Warren held that Bertram Trading Limited had failed to comply with section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The claimants listed in the attached schedule succeeded in their protective award claim, and the tribunal ordered remuneration for a protected period of 90 days beginning on 19 June 2022. The recoupment regulations were said to apply.

In all other respects, the tribunal struck out the remaining claims brought by the claimants listed in the schedule because they were not being actively pursued. The judgment also amended the name of the First Respondent in case numbers 3311519/2020 and 3306252/2020 to Bertram Trading Limited.

Claims and outcomes

2 findings recorded

This case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Other	Protective award under sections 188 and 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The tribunal held that the first respondent failed to comply with section 188 and ordered remuneration for a protected period of 90 days. The extracted judgment text states that the protected period begins on 19 June 2022, but it also refers to employees dismissed as redundant on or after 19 June 2012; that date appears inconsistent in the text.	Upheld	—	—
Other	All other claims brought by the claimants listed in the attached schedule were struck out on the ground that they were not being actively pursued. The judgment does not identify those claims individually.	Struck out	—	—

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.

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.