Case 3310819/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr W J Evans and others (see attached schedule) v Zero Point Eight (Dudley) Limited (In Administration) and 1 other — 2022
- Case reference
- 3310819/2022
- Decision date
- 15 November 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Faulkner
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr W J Evans and others (see attached schedule)
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal found that the Claimants were employed by the First Respondent and were among more than thirty employees dismissed as redundant on 23 May 2022. Their place of work was Washington Centre, Halesowen Road, Dudley, West Midlands, and the First Respondent went into administration on or around 6 June 2022.
The Claimants complained that the First Respondent failed to comply with the requirements of section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. Employment Judge Faulkner found that complaint well founded.
The Tribunal made a protective award for all Claimants and ordered the First Respondent to pay each Claimant remuneration for the protected period of 90 days beginning on 23 May 2022. No specific monetary total or per-Claimant figure is stated in the judgment text.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Protective award claim for failure to comply with section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The taxonomy has no specific protective award category, so classified as other rather than redundancy_pay because the judgment awards remuneration for a protected period, not a redundancy payment. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 188 of the 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.