Case 3320876/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Ms C Holuta & Others v Nigel Fredericks Trading Ltd C/o Dow Schofield Watts Business Recovery LLP CONSENT — 2020
- Case reference
- 3320876/2019
- Decision date
- 25 January 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hyams Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms C Holuta & Others
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a consent judgment in consolidated proceedings. Claim number 3322295/2019 was identified as a duplicate claim and was dismissed on its withdrawal by the claimant. The remaining claims, numbered 3320876/2019 to 3321015/2019 and 3324013/2019 to 3324014/2019, were consolidated and dealt with together.
The tribunal recorded that the claimants were employed by the respondent and were dismissed by reason of redundancy on 13 June 2019, the same date on which Christopher Benjamin Barrett and Lisa Marie Moxon of Dow Schofield Watts Business Recovery LLP were appointed joint administrators. It found that the respondent did not inform and consult the claimants in accordance with sections 188 and 188A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.
The claimants brought claims under section 189 of the Act for a protective award arising from that failure, and the respondent accepted that those claims were well-founded. The tribunal ordered the respondent to make to each claimant a protective award of 8 weeks' pay, calculated by reference to that claimant's salary as at 13 June 2019. It also recorded that the awards would be unsecured claims in the respondent's insolvency and would not be expenses of the administration or payable by the joint administrators personally. No order as to costs was made.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Duplicate claim number 3322295/2019; the judgment records that it was dismissed on its withdrawal by the claimant. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Other | Consolidated claims for a protective award under section 189 TULRCA 1992 following the respondent's failure to inform and consult under sections 188 and 188A. The respondent accepted the claims were well-founded; each claimant was awarded 8 weeks' pay by reference to salary as at 13 June 2019. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- sections 188 and 188A TULRCA 1992
- section 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.