Case 3309742/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Cox v GE Realisations 2023 Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 3309742/2023
- Decision date
- 22 November 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Foxwell Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Cox
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment was entered by consent under Rule 64. Mr J Cox was employed by GE Realisations 2023 Limited on 3 July 2023, and on that same date the respondent entered creditors’ voluntary liquidation and dismissed him by reason of redundancy.
The claimant brought a complaint under section 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 seeking a protective award for the respondent’s failure to consult under sections 188 and 188A. The respondent accepted that the claimant was assigned to an establishment where 20 or more redundancies were proposed within 90 days, and accepted that it had not fully informed and consulted with him in accordance with those provisions.
The tribunal made a protective award in the claimant’s favour for a protected period of 56 days. The parties agreed that the protected period began on 3 July 2023, the award was capped at the amount payable by the Redundancy Payments Service under its regulations and limits, and any payment would be subject to the usual income tax and National Insurance deductions.
The judgment states that the protective award ranks as a preferential debt in the liquidation and that the RPS would pay the protective award payments. It also records that there was no order for costs or fees and that each party would bear its own costs and fees. The claims were extinguished in their entirety by the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Protective award claim under section 189 TULRCA 1992 for failure to inform and consult under sections 188 and 188A. Judgment entered by consent; tribunal made a protective award for a protected period of 56 days, capped by the RPS and subject to statutory deductions, but the judgment does not state a quantified monetary amount. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.188 TULRCA 1992
- s.188A TULRCA 1992
- s.189 TULRCA 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.