Case 3310362/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Dacey & Others (see attached schedule) v Allied Mechanical Services Limited in creditors voluntary liquidation — 2023
- Case reference
- 3310362/2023
- Decision date
- 14 November 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Dacey & Others (see attached schedule)
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment in a multiple claim brought by Mr R Dacey and others against Allied Mechanical Services Limited in creditors voluntary liquidation. The tribunal recorded that the respondent had failed to comply with the requirement in section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, and for that reason the claim for a protective award succeeded.
The tribunal made a protective award for the claimants who worked at the respondent’s establishment at Morecroft House, Willie Snaith Road, Newmarket, Suffolk, CB8 7SQ and who were dismissed as redundant on or after 23 May 2023. The protected period was stated to begin on 23 May 2023 and to run for 90 days.
The judgment did not set out any separate monetary sum in the extracted text. It noted that the Recoupment Regulations apply.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trade union | Protective award under section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992; the award was made for a protected period of 90 days beginning on 23 May 2023, with the Recoupment Regulations applying. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.188 Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013, Rule 21
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.