Case 3314352/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs M Pink For the v Inland Limited (in administration) and 1 other — 2024
- Case reference
- 3314352/2023
- Decision date
- 30 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hyams Members
- Panel members
- Ms B Von Maydell-Koch, Mr D Wharton
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mrs M Pink For the
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that the first respondent had failed to comply with the consultation requirement in section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. On that basis, the claim for a protective award succeeded. The decision was unanimous and was given at Watford on 30 July 2024 before Employment Judge Hyams with lay members Ms B Von Maydell-Koch and Mr D Wharton.
The tribunal recorded that the claimants, Mrs M Pink, Mrs L Castle, Miss K Barrett, Miss N McCue and Mr C Gibson, all worked at one of the respondent's establishments where 20 or more employees worked and were dismissed as redundant on 31 October 2023. It therefore made a protective award in respect of all the named claimants.
The award was for remuneration for a protected period beginning on 31 October 2023 and lasting 84 days. The tribunal also noted that the Recoupment Regulations apply. No separate monetary figure was stated in the written record of the decision.
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 & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The tribunal found the first respondent had failed to comply with section 188 and made a protective award for the claimants. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 188 of the Trade Union & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- Recoupment Regulations
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.