Case 3321318/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs S Pask Mr J Kowalski v Evcl Three Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 3321318/2021
- Decision date
- 29 December 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Bedeau Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs S Pask Mr J Kowalski
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment records that the claimants were employed by EVCL Three Limited (In Administration). On 24 September 2021 joint administrators were appointed, the claimants were dismissed by reason of redundancy, and the respondent did not fully inform and consult with them in accordance with ss.188 and 188A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The claimants brought a complaint under s.189 seeking a protective award, and the company acting through its joint administrators agreed to lift the stay so that protective award claims only could proceed.
The Tribunal made a protective award in favour of the claimants and ordered remuneration for a protected period of 90 days beginning on each claimant's redundancy date. The judgment also states that any part of the award not paid by the Redundancy Payments Service would rank as ordinary unsecured claims against 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 complaint under ss.188, 188A and 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The judgment orders remuneration for a 90-day protected period beginning on each claimant's redundancy date, but no numeric sum is stated. | Upheld | — | — |
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.