Case 3310057/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs Young, For the Second Claimants: Mr R Brian, Rugby Players Association For the v London, Irish, Scottish, Richmond Ltd (In Administration) and Secretary of State for Business, Energy and 1 other — 2024
- Case reference
- 3310057/2023
- Decision date
- 4 January 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Postle Appearances
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mrs Young, For the Second Claimants: Mr R Brian, Rugby Players Association For the
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal granted a declaration for all claimants listed on the attached schedule that the respondent had failed to comply with section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The judgment records that the respondents were not represented and did not attend.
The tribunal found that a protective award should be paid to the affected employees at all affected sites of the respondent who were dismissed as redundant on 8 June 2023. It held that the protected period began on the date of dismissal, 8 June 2023, and lasted for 90 days.
The award was made under section 190(2) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The extracted judgment states that the claimants were awarded 90 days per affected employee, but it does not set out a monetary sum in the text supplied.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trade union | The tribunal granted a declaration that the claimants' complaint of failure to comply with s.188 TULRCA 1992 was well founded and ordered a protective award of 90 days' remuneration per affected employee. No monetary figure was stated in the extracted judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.188 Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- s.190(2) Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 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.