Case 3306326/2025 · Employment Tribunal

Mrs N Tidbury & Others (see attached schedule) v RPA Vision Ltd (in creditors voluntary liquidation) and 1 other — 2026

Case reference: 3306326/2025
Decision date: 2 March 2026
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Foxwell Date

Indexed: 25 April 2026

Parties

3 named

Claimant

Mrs N Tidbury & Others (see attached schedule)

Respondents

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The claimants worked at the First Respondent's establishment in Ashford, Middlesex, and were all made redundant on 16 September 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 took place 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. Seeing no reason to depart from the principle that protective awards are punitive and should be for the maximum period, the Tribunal ordered the employer to pay each claimant remuneration for a 90-day protected period beginning on 16 September 2025. The Recoupment Regulations apply.

Claims and outcomes

1 finding recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Other	Protective award under TULRCA 1992 s.189; multi-claimant collective redundancy at the First Respondent's Ashford establishment. 18 claimants on the schedule, all dismissed on 16 September 2025 without consultation. Maximum 90-day protected period awarded. The First Respondent (in creditors' voluntary liquidation) did not file a response.	Upheld	—	—

Legal tests applied

4 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.