Case 3311189/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Gibbs & Others (see attached schedule) v Specialised Management Services Limited (In Administration) and 1 other — 2025
- Case reference
- 3311189/2024
- Decision date
- 4 April 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Foxwell Date
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr A Gibbs & Others (see attached schedule)
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal found that the claimants worked at the respondent's establishment at Starling House, Gorleston-on-Sea, and were made redundant on 24 July 2024. There was no recognised trade union or elected employee representatives at the establishment, and 20 or more employees were made redundant or placed at risk of redundancy on or within 90 days of that date.
The Tribunal found that the claimants were dismissed during that period without any consultation having taken place. The claims were presented within the time limit in section 189(5)(b) because the last dismissals occurred on 13 September 2024.
The first respondent was in administration and had not filed a response, but its administrators consented to the protective award claim proceeding. The Tribunal held that there was no reason to depart from the principle that protective awards are punitive and should be for the maximum period unless circumstances make it just not to do so, and made a protective award for a 90-day protected period beginning on 24 July 2024. The Recoupment Regulations apply.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The adjudicated claim was for a protective award arising from failure to comply with section 188 of the Trade Union & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The locked taxonomy has no specific protective award category, so this is classified as other. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 188 of the Trade Union & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- section 189(5)(b) of the Trade Union & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- protective awards are punitive and should be for the maximum period unless there are circumstances making it just not to do so
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.