Case 3320755/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Stockwell v Evcl Three Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 3320755/2021
- Decision date
- 6 August 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Stockwell
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr C Stockwell was employed by EVCL Three Limited, which had entered administration on 24 September 2021. The tribunal recorded that the claimant and other employees were dismissed by reason of redundancy on 27 September 2021, after the company had changed form through earlier operational changes in 2021.
The tribunal found that the respondent did not fully inform and consult with the claimants in accordance with sections 188 and 188A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The claimants therefore brought a complaint under section 189 seeking a protective award in respect of that failure.
By consent, the tribunal made a protective award in favour of the claimants. It ordered the respondent to pay remuneration for a protected period of 90 days beginning on 27 September 2021, calculated at a weekly rate of £748.95 and amounting to £9,629.36.
The judgment also records that any part of the protected award not paid by the Redundancy Payments Service will rank as an ordinary unsecured claim in the administration, and that there was 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 s.189 TULRCA 1992 for failure to inform and consult in accordance with s.188 and s.188A; award made for a protected period of 90 days from 27 September 2021. | Upheld | — | £9,629 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £9,629
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.188 TULRCA 1992
- s.188A TULRCA 1992
- s.189 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.
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.