Case 3309135/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr K Bagri & Others (see attached schedule) v Linkline Transport Limited (in administration) and 1 other — 2025
- Case reference
- 3309135/2024
- Decision date
- 16 June 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Foxwell Date
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr K Bagri & Others (see attached schedule)
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimants worked at the respondent's DC7 establishment in Kettering and were made redundant on 18 June 2024. The tribunal found that 20 or more employees at that establishment were made redundant or placed at risk of redundancy on or within 90 days of that date, and that the claimants were dismissed during the period without any consultation having taken place.
The first respondent was in administration and its administrators consented to the protective award claim proceeding. The tribunal found no reason to depart from the principle that protective awards are punitive and should be for the maximum period unless there are circumstances making it just not to do so.
The claim for a protective award succeeded. The tribunal ordered the employer to pay remuneration for a protected period beginning on 18 June 2024 and lasting 90 days, with the Recoupment Regulations applying.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trade union | The tribunal found a failure to comply with section 188 of the Trade Union & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 and made a protective award for a protected period of 90 days from 18 June 2024. No monetary amount was stated. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 188 of the Trade Union & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- section 189(5)(b) 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.