Case 3307814/2023 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Cosmur Construction (London) Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 3307814/2023
- Decision date
- 9 September 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Miss Alina Maria Kopera, brought a claim against Cosmur Construction (London) Ltd. The judgment was issued under Rule 21 after a hearing by CVP before Employment Judge K J Palmer sitting alone, with no appearance for the respondent.
The tribunal held that the claimant's claim for a protective award for failure to consult under section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 succeeded. The judgment does not set out additional findings of fact or separate liability reasoning in the extracted text, but it records the statutory basis of the claim and that it was upheld.
The tribunal awarded the claimant £3,334.34 as a protective award, described as being in respect of 30 days' pay. No other remedies are recorded in the extracted judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The tribunal recorded that the claimant's claim for a protective award for failure to consult under section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 succeeded. The award was stated to be £3,334.34 in respect of 30 days' pay. | Upheld | — | £3,334 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,334
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure
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.