Case 3316067/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S McBride v And Others Ensco 1035 Ltd and (in Creditors Voluntary Liquidation) — 2020
- Case reference
- 3316067/2019
- Decision date
- 30 January 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Kurrein JUDGMENT
- Venue
- Norwich
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S McBride
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimants were employed by the respondent, which traded as the St Giles House Hotel. On 1 April 2019, Mr McBride was told to inform the employees then at work that they should stop work and go home, which they did. The tribunal recorded that no employees had been paid for the previous month’s work and that their dismissal for redundancy on 1 April 2019 came without warning or consultation.
The claimants sought a protective award under ss.188, 188A and 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The respondent did not enter an appearance or attend to contest the issue of remedy.
The tribunal noted that protective awards are intended to be punitive and that a maximum award is the starting point. In the absence of any objection from the respondent, Employment Judge Kurrein made a maximum award of 90 days' pay from 1 April 2019 in favour of each claimant. The extracted text refers to a schedule annexed to the judgment setting out each claimant’s award, but the individual monetary figures are not included in the supplied text.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trade union | Protective award under ss.188, 188A and 189 Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The judgment orders a protective award equal to 90 days' pay from 1 April 2019 for each claimant, but the extracted text does not include the schedule with individual pay figures. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- ss.188, 188A and 189 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.