Case 3310927/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr B De-Honri v LA Metalworks Limited (in Voluntary Liquidation) and 1 other — 2023
- Case reference
- 3310927/2022
- Decision date
- 16 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Reindorf Representation
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr B De-Honri
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal recorded that the claim against LA Metalworks Limited for unfair dismissal succeeded. It also recorded that the Claimant was not entitled to compensation for unfair dismissal.
The tribunal found that LA Metalworks Limited failed to comply with its duty under section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. It ordered the First Respondent to pay a protective award of 90 days' gross pay, amounting to £9,562.50.
The claim against the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy was dismissed. Reasons were given orally at the hearing, and the written judgment states that written reasons would only be provided if requested within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The claim against the First Respondent for unfair dismissal succeeded, but the Claimant was found not entitled to compensation for unfair dismissal. | Upheld | — | £0 |
| Trade union | The claim against the First Respondent for failure to comply with its duty under section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 succeeded, with a protective award of 90 days' gross pay. | Upheld | — | £9,563 |
| Other | The judgment states that the claim against the Second Respondent was dismissed, but does not identify a distinct cause of action in the written judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £9,563
- across all upheld claims
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.