Case 3310998/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Better Bathrooms (UK) Limited (in administration) — 2020
- Case reference
- 3310998/2019
- Decision date
- 16 December 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hawksworth
- Venue
- Reading
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that Mr McGill was employed at the respondent's Didcot location, where 78 employees were employed, and that the respondent failed to inform or consult in respect of redundancies taking place within a period of 90 days. It declared that Mr McGill was entitled to a protective award.
The tribunal found there was no reason put forward to reduce the protective award period and considered it just and equitable to award the maximum period of 90 days. The protected period was stated to begin on 1 March 2019, with entitlement to remuneration for that period.
Mr McGill's other complaints for arrears of pay, notice pay and holiday pay were dismissed because he had not replied to tribunal correspondence and had not provided details of the sums he said were owed.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Protective award claim upheld for Mr McGill, but the judgment does not quantify his individual award amount; it states he is entitled to remuneration for the 90 day protected period beginning on 1 March 2019. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Arrears of pay complaint dismissed because Mr McGill did not provide details of the amount claimed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Notice pay complaint dismissed because Mr McGill did not provide details of the amount claimed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Holiday pay complaint dismissed because Mr McGill did not provide details of the amount claimed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- just and equitable
- rule 47
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.