Case 3308168/2023 · Employment Tribunal

Ms W Chapman v Qube Qualifications and Development Limited (in Creditors Voluntary Liquidation) and 1 other — 2025

Case reference: 3308168/2023
Decision date: 22 August 2025
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Shastri-Hurst Date

Indexed: 18 May 2026

Parties

3 named

Claimant

Ms W Chapman

Respondents

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The Tribunal found that the respondent's premises at Bee House, 140 Eastern Avenue, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxfordshire constituted an establishment for the purposes of s188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.

It also found that there was no recognised trade union or appointed or elected employee representatives for the purposes of s188(1B). The complaint that the respondent failed to comply with a requirement of s188 was upheld, and a protective award was made in the claimant's favour.

The respondent was ordered to pay a protective award equivalent to remuneration for 90 days beginning on 28 March 2023. The judgment states that the Employment Protection (Recoupment of Jobseeker's Allowance and Income Support) Regulations 1996 apply to the award.

Claims and outcomes

1 finding recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Other	Protective award complaint under s188 TULR(C)A upheld. The locked claim_type enum has no specific protective_award category.	Upheld	—	—

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.

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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.