Case 3322749/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr G Guida v Evcl Three Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 3322749/2021
- Decision date
- 18 August 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr G Guida
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEVCL Three Limited (in administration) appointed joint administrators on 24 September 2021. The claimant and other employees were employed by the company, and on 27 September 2021 they were dismissed by reason of redundancy.
The tribunal recorded that the respondent did not fully inform and consult with the claimants in accordance with s.188 and s.188A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The claims were brought under s.189 of that Act seeking a protective award, and the company acting by its joint administrators was prepared to lift the stay so that protective award claims only could proceed.
The tribunal made a protective award in favour of the claimants for a protected period of 90 days beginning on 27 September 2021. The award was calculated at the weekly rate of £544, producing a total of £6,994.29. The tribunal also recorded that any unpaid amounts not met by the Redundancy Payments Service would rank as ordinary unsecured claims in the administration.
No order was made for costs or fees, with each party bearing its own costs and fees.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Protective award under s.189 TULRCA 1992 for failure to fully inform and consult under s.188 and s.188A TULRCA 1992. The judgment was by consent. | Upheld | — | £6,994 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £6,994
- 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.