Case 3308173/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs G Maris v Qube Qualifications and Development Limited (in Creditors Voluntary Liquidation) — 2025
- Case reference
- 3308173/2023
- Decision date
- 27 May 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shastri-Hurst Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs G Maris
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal found that the respondent's premises at Bee House, 140 Eastern Avenue, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxfordshire constituted an establishment for the purpose 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 purpose 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 favour of the claimant.
The respondent was ordered to pay remuneration for a protected period of 90 days, or 12.86 weeks, beginning on 28 March 2023, in the amount of £6,924.60.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Protective award for failure to comply with s188 of TULR(C)A; the locked taxonomy has no specific protective award category. | Upheld | — | £6,925 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £6,925
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- s188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- s188(1B) 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.