Case 3314547/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Natasha Lamb v Reem Clothing Limited (in voluntary liquidation) — 2023
- Case reference
- 3314547/2023
- Decision date
- 28 September 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Alliott Representation
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Natasha Lamb
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that the respondent failed to comply with the section 188 Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 consultation requirement, so the claim for a protective award succeeded. The reasons recorded that there were more than 20 employees at the establishment where the claimant worked, the claim was presented within the statutory time limit, and there was no recognised trade union or elected employee representatives at the establishment.
The tribunal also found that 20 or more employees were made redundant or were at risk of redundancy on 28 September 2023, and that the claimant and other employees were dismissed without the minimum statutory consultation period. It found there had been minimal consultation and said the protective award should be for the maximum period. The judgment therefore made a protective award with the protected period beginning on 28 September 2023 and lasting 90 days, and stated that the Recoupment Regulations apply. No monetary figure is stated in the extracted text.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Protective award under section 188 Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The judgment fixed a protected period of 90 days and stated that the Recoupment Regulations apply, but no monetary sum was set out in the extracted text. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.188 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.