Case 3307055/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Hunter and others v Andron Handling Ltd (in administration) and The Secretary of State for Business and Trade — 2023
- Case reference
- 3307055/2022
- Decision date
- 19 July 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Anstis Appearances
Parties
2 namedKey findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Reading by CVP on 19 July 2023 before Employment Judge Anstis. Because the first respondent failed to present a response and its administrators consented to the claims proceeding, the tribunal entered judgment under Rule 21 and added the Secretary of State for Business and Trade as a second respondent. The tribunal held that Mrs V Hunter, Mr B Atak, Mr J Gleeson, Mr J Payne, Mr J Lee, Mr K Puddephatt, Mr D Gleeson and Mr K Wilmot were each entitled to a protective award under section 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 for a protected period of 90 days starting on 8 April 2022.
Mrs V Hunter's separate claim for notice pay was dismissed on withdrawal. The written judgment did not quantify any monetary award for the protective award, and it stated that the shared judgment concluded all of the cases except Mr K Puddephatt's, in respect of which a separate order would be made.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Protective award under section 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 for the claimants listed in paragraph 2; the tribunal fixed a protected period of 90 days starting on 8 April 2022. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Mrs V Hunter's claim for notice pay was dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 21
- section 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
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.