Case 3311834/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr W Roe & Others (see attached Schedule) v Autorestore Limited (in administration) and 1 other — 2023
- Case reference
- 3311834/2022
- Decision date
- 27 February 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Foxwell Date
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr W Roe & Others (see attached Schedule)
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal found that the first respondent failed to comply with a requirement of section 188 of the Trade Union & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, and that the claim for a protective award succeeded.
The judgment records that there were 42 claimants, that they appeared to have been employed at the same Rushden establishment, and that they were made redundant on or after 14 June 2022. It also records that 20 or more employees at the establishment appeared to have been made redundant or placed at risk of redundancy on or within 90 days of that date, and that the claimants said no consultation had taken place.
The first respondent did not file a response. The second respondent admitted that the first respondent was insolvent within the meaning of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The Tribunal considered it disproportionate to convene a hearing and made a protective award for the maximum 90-day protected period beginning on 14 June 2022, with the Recoupment Regulations applying.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Claim for a protective award for failure to comply with section 188 of the Trade Union & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The award was remuneration for a protected period of 90 days, not a fixed monetary sum in the judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 188 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.