Case 3314302/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Debenhams Retail Limited (in Administration) — 2023
- Case reference
- 3314302/2020
- Decision date
- 3 October 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Broughton Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment concerned the listed claimants, all employed by Debenhams Retail Limited at its Leeds White Rose store. The respondent entered administration on 9 April 2020 and the claimants were dismissed by reason of redundancy on 31 May 2020.
The claimants brought a complaint under section 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 seeking a protective award for failure to consult under sections 188 and 188A. The tribunal found that the claimants were assigned to an establishment where 20 or more redundancies were proposed within 90 days, and that the respondent did not fully inform and consult with them as required.
The tribunal ordered a protected period of 90 days from the date of the first dismissal, 31 May 2020. It stated that protective award payments would rank as unsecured claims in the respondent's insolvency, with some potentially recoverable from the Redundancy Payments Service, and made no order for costs or fees.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Protective award claim under section 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 for failure to inform and consult in accordance with sections 188 and 188A. Any other claims intimated by the claim forms were to stand dismissed automatically after 14 days unless specified by a claimant with administrator consent. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- s.188 and s.188A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
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.