Case 3311469/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr K Prokop v C1 Realisations (2020) Limited (In Administration) — 2022
- Case reference
- 3311469/2020
- Decision date
- 30 June 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Foxwell Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr K Prokop
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr K Prokop was employed by C1 Realisations (2020) Limited at its Milton Keynes restaurant and was dismissed as redundant on 14 May 2020. He was one of 29 employees made redundant or placed at risk of redundancy on the same day. The tribunal recorded evidence that there was no recognised trade union or elected employee representatives.
The respondent, which was in administration, had not filed a response disputing the claim, although the administrators consented to the proceedings continuing. On that basis, the tribunal found the respondent had failed to comply with section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 and held that the claim for a protective award succeeded.
The tribunal made a protective award in respect of the claimant for the protected period beginning on 14 May 2020 and lasting 90 days. It noted that the Recoupment Regulations apply. The reasons also state that protective awards are punitive and should generally be for the maximum period unless there are circumstances making it just not to do so, and that holding a hearing would be disproportionate in the circumstances.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trade union | The tribunal found 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 for the claimant for a protected period of 90 days starting on 14 May 2020. | Upheld | — | — |
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.