Case 3312746/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Ideal World Ltd (in Administration) and The Secretary of State for Business and Trade — 2020
- Case reference
- 3312746/2023
- Decision date
- 7 August 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Foxwell Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimants brought claims for a protective award after redundancies at Ideal World Limited's establishment at Ideal Home House, Newark Road, Peterborough. The tribunal was satisfied that the claims were presented in time, that the claimants were employed at the same establishment, and that they were made redundant on or after 6 July 2023. It also found that there was no recognised trade union or elected employee representatives at the establishment, and that 20 or more employees were made redundant or placed at risk of redundancy within 90 days of 6 July 2023.
The tribunal found that the claimants were dismissed during this period without any consultation taking place, so the first respondent had failed to comply with section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The respondent was in administration and had not filed a response, although its administrators consented to the claims proceeding. The Secretary of State filed a response only to assist the tribunal, and the matter was determined without a hearing.
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. It therefore made a protective award in respect of the qualifying claimants for remuneration for a protected period beginning on 6 July 2023 and lasting 90 days, and stated that the Recoupment Regulations apply.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Protective award claim under section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The tribunal found the first respondent had failed to comply with the consultation requirement and made a 90-day protective award; no single monetary sum was stated in the judgment. | 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.