Case 3309198/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms K Anderson & Others (as per attached Schedule v Roadbridge UK Limited (in administration) and 1 other — 2023
- Case reference
- 3309198/2022
- Decision date
- 25 January 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Foxwell Date
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Ms K Anderson & Others (as per attached Schedule
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal found that the respondent failed to comply with a requirement of section 188 of the Trade Union & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, and that the claim for a protective award succeeded.
The judgment records that there were 25 claimants, apparently employed at the same Welwyn Garden City establishment, who were made redundant on or after 16 March 2022. It states that the claimants asserted there was no recognised trade union or elected employee representatives, that 20 or more employees at the establishment were made redundant or placed at risk of redundancy within the relevant period, and that the claimants were dismissed without consultation.
The first respondent had not filed a response, and the second respondent admitted that the first respondent was insolvent within the meaning of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The Tribunal considered it disproportionate to convene a hearing and made a protective award for the maximum 90-day protected period, applying 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.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trade union | The judgment upheld a claim for a protective award for failure to comply with section 188 of the Trade Union & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The award is expressed as remuneration for a 90-day protected period, not as a fixed monetary amount. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 188 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.