Case 3315244/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms S Bull & others (see schedule attached) v Norfolk Feather company Ltd (In administration) — 2023
- Case reference
- 3315244/2022
- Decision date
- 27 February 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Postle Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms S Bull & others (see schedule attached)
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal granted a declaration that the claimants' complaint that the respondent failed to comply with section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 was well founded. It found that a protective award should be paid to the affected employees at all affected sites of Norfolk Feather Company Ltd, who were dismissed as redundant in May and June 2013.
The protected period was set as 90 days beginning with the date of dismissal. The tribunal further recorded that the claimants were to be paid remuneration for that 90-day period pursuant to section 190(2) of the 1992 Act, and that the award was 90 days' pay per affected employee.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Protective award under section 188 TULRCA 1992; the tribunal ordered 90 days' pay per affected employee under section 190(2). | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 188 TULRCA 1992
- section 190(2) TULRCA 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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.