Case 3311416/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Coleman Mr L Edwards Mr M Taylor v UK Protected Limited trading as “Freedom to Insure” in Administration and 1 other — 2024
- Case reference
- 3311416/2023
- Decision date
- 15 May 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Foxwell Date
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr A Coleman Mr L Edwards Mr M Taylor
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal considered the matter on the papers after reading the claim forms, the second respondent’s response, and written representations. It found that the claimants were employed at the same Aldershot establishment, Freedom House, 1 Charity Estate, Ivy Road, Aldershot, Hampshire GU12 4TX, and that they were made redundant on or after 19 June 2023. It also found that there were more than 20 employees at the establishment, that the claims were presented in time, and that there was no recognised trade union or elected employee representatives at the establishment.
The tribunal found that 20 or more employees at the establishment were made redundant or placed at risk of redundancy on or within 90 days of 19 June 2023, and that the claimants were dismissed during that period without any consultation taking place. It recorded that the first respondent did not file a response, and that the second respondent’s response was filed only to assist the tribunal and was given without direct knowledge of events. In those circumstances, the tribunal said it was disproportionate to convene a hearing.
On that basis, the tribunal held that the respondent had failed to comply with section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 and that the claim for a protective award succeeded. It made a protective award in respect of the claimants who worked at the respondent’s establishment and who were dismissed as redundant on or after 19 June 2023, for the protected period beginning on 19 June 2023 and lasting 90 days. The tribunal also noted that the Recoupment Regulations apply.
In its reasons, the tribunal said there was no reason to depart from the principle that protective awards are punitive and should be for the maximum period unless there are circumstances making it just not to do so. The judgment does not set out any separate monetary figure for the award in the extracted text.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Protective award under section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992; the judgment makes an award for the protected period beginning on 19 June 2023 and lasting 90 days, but it does not quantify a monetary sum. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 188 of the Trade Union and 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.