Case 3308666/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs J Bulluss & Others v Hemdean House School Limited (In Creditors Voluntary Liquidation) and 1 other — 2025
- Case reference
- 3308666/2024
- Decision date
- 7 July 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge French
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mrs J Bulluss & Others
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal found that the claimants had presented their claims within the statutory time limit. The claimants were employed at the same establishment in Caversham, Reading and were made redundant on or after 12 July 2024.
The Tribunal found that there was no recognised trade union or elected employee representatives, and that 20 or more employees at the establishment were made redundant or placed at risk of redundancy on or within 90 days of 12 July 2024. The claimants were dismissed during that period without any consultation having taken place.
The first respondent had not filed a response. The second respondent filed a response, which the Tribunal treated as a written submission. The Tribunal considered it disproportionate to convene a hearing and made a protective award for the maximum period of 90 days, noting there appeared to be no reason to depart from the principle that protective awards are punitive and should be for the maximum period unless circumstances make it just not to do so.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Claim for a protective award succeeded following failure to comply with section 188 of the Trade Union & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The award was expressed as remuneration for a 90-day protected period, not as a fixed monetary sum. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 188 of the Trade Union & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- protective awards are punitive and should be for the maximum period unless there are circumstances making it just not to do so
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.