Case 3309695/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Carey v Kershaw Mechanical Services Limited (In Administration) — 2023
- Case reference
- 3309695/2022
- Decision date
- 7 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Foxwell Dated
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr P Carey
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a judgment by consent under Rule 64. The tribunal recorded that the administrators granted permission for the claim and lifted the moratorium on 27 February 2023, subject to the conditions agreed by the claimant, and that the claimant had been employed by the respondent, Kershaw Mechanical Services Limited (In Administration). The judgment states that the protective award claim under section 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 succeeds.
The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay remuneration to the claimant for a protected period of 60 days beginning on 1 April 2022, identified as the date on which the first dismissal to which the claim related took effect. No monetary figure for that remuneration is set out in the judgment. The judgment also states that the Employment Protection (Recoupment of Benefits) Regulations 1996 apply.
The judgment records that the claimant had claims for unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal/notice pay, unlawful deductions from wages, and breach of Regulation 14 of the Working Time Regulations 1998, and that he confirmed withdrawal of those claims. Those claims were dismissed upon withdrawal under Rule 52. The judgment further states that, apart from those claims, the claimant had no other Employment Tribunal claims against the respondent.
As to payment and costs, the judgment provides that any payments made by the respondent rather than the Secretary of State would be paid as an unsecured dividend, subject to the normal preferential debts rules, and that there would be no order as to costs or interest, with each party bearing its own costs.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Protective award claim under section 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992; the judgment says it succeeds and orders remuneration for a protected period of 60 days beginning on 1 April 2022, but no monetary figure is stated. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment records that this claim was withdrawn under Rule 51 and dismissed upon withdrawal under Rule 52. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The judgment refers to this as a claim for wrongful dismissal/notice pay; it was withdrawn and dismissed upon withdrawal under Rule 52. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment records withdrawal of this claim and dismissal upon withdrawal under Rule 52. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The judgment refers to this as a claim for breach of Regulation 14 of the Working Time Regulations 1998; it was withdrawn and dismissed upon withdrawal under Rule 52. | Withdrawn | — | — |
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.