Case 3310978/2019 · Employment Tribunal
In Person For the First v Multi York Furniture Ltd (In Administration) and 2 others — 2019
- Case reference
- 3310978/2019
- Decision date
- 16 October 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Postle Appearances
- Venue
- Norwich
Parties
4 namedClaimant
In Person For the First
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal declared that the claimant’s complaint that Multi York Furniture Limited had failed to comply with section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 was well founded. The judgment was against the first respondent, which did not attend and was not represented, and the second respondent also did not attend and was not represented.
The Tribunal found that a protected award should be paid to the affected employees at all affected sites of the respondent who were dismissed as redundant in November 2018, December 2018 and January 2019. It fixed the protected period as beginning with the date of the claimant’s dismissal and lasting for 90 days.
The written record also states that remuneration is to be paid for a period of 90 days pursuant to section 190(2) of the 1992 Act, and that the claimant is awarded 90 days pay. The extracted text does not include a monetary sum for that award.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The complaint was under section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The judgment records a protected award of 90 days pay, but the extracted text does not state a cash figure. | 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.