Case 3310922/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Polar Manufacturing Ltd (in Creditor’s Voluntary Liquidation) and Secretary of State for Trade and Business — 2024
- Case reference
- 3310922/2023
- Decision date
- 15 May 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hutchings
- Venue
- Norwich
Parties
2 namedKey findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt Norwich on 4 April 2024, Employment Judge Hutchings, sitting alone, heard claims by multiple claimants against Polar Manufacturing Ltd (in Creditor’s Voluntary Liquidation) and the Secretary of State. The respondent did not attend. The tribunal recorded that the claimants were dismissed as redundant on 13 July 2023.
The tribunal granted a declaration that the claimants’ complaints that the first respondent failed to comply with section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 were well founded. It then found that each claimant should receive a protective award.
The protected period was fixed at 30 days, described in the judgment as 6 working weeks, beginning with the dismissals on 13 July 2023 and matching the period claimed by the claimants. The tribunal ordered that each claimant be paid remuneration for that 30-day protected period under section 190(2) of the 1992 Act. No separate monetary figure was stated in the judgment text.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | Protective award claim under sections 188 and 189 TULRCA 1992. The tribunal granted a declaration that the complaints were well founded and ordered remuneration for a protected period of 30 days under section 190(2), but the judgment did not specify a monetary sum. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 188 TULRCA 1992
- section 189 TULRCA 1992
- section 190(2) 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.