Case 3311218/2020 · Employment Tribunal

Mrs E Buckard (1) Mrs S Britton (2) v Oasis and Warehouse Limited (in administration) and 1 other — 2022

Case reference: 3311218/2020
Decision date: 1 February 2022
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Hawksworth Date

Indexed: 19 May 2026

Parties

3 named

Claimant

Mrs E Buckard (1) Mrs S Britton (2)

Respondents

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The first respondent did not contest the first claimant's claim for a protective award, and the tribunal issued judgment under rule 21 without a hearing. The tribunal found that the first respondent proposed to make 45 redundancies at its Stanton Harcourt site after going into administration on 15 April 2020.

The tribunal found that the first respondent did not fully inform and consult with the first claimant under section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. It found there was no proper warning or consultation and no employee representatives were elected or appointed as required under section 188A.

The tribunal made a protective award under section 189 for the maximum protected period of 90 days beginning on 15 April 2020. The second claimant's claim was dismissed as a duplicate because judgment had already been issued for her in another case.

Claims and outcomes

2 findings recorded

This case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Other	First claimant's complaint against the first respondent for a protective award for failure to comply with collective consultation requirements under section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 was found well-founded. The award was equivalent to remuneration for 90 days beginning 15 April 2020; no monetary amount was stated.	Upheld	—	—
Other	Second claimant's claim was dismissed as a duplicate because judgment had already been issued for her in case number 3311110/2020.	Dismissed	—	—

Legal tests applied

4 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.

Open official judgment PDF on gov.uk

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.