Case 3324021/2019 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Thomas Cook UK Travel Ltd (in compulsory liquidation) and Alix Partners UK LLP — 2021
- Case reference
- 3324021/2019
- Decision date
- 11 January 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Foxwell Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr Edward Morris-Jones, had been employed by Thomas Cook UK Travel Limited as an HR Business Partner from 5 November 1997. Thomas Cook entered compulsory liquidation on 23 September 2019. He presented a complaint seeking a protective award on 8 October 2019. The tribunal initially rejected the claim for non-compliance with the early conciliation provisions, but on reconsideration it accepted that the claimant had in fact obtained an ACAS early conciliation certificate, numbered R582044/19/89, with first notification on 8 October 2019 and issue on 23 October 2019.
The tribunal held that a claim for a protective award is relevant proceedings for the purposes of section 18A of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996, and that none of the exemptions in regulation 3 of the Employment Tribunals (Early Conciliation: Exemptions and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2014 applied. It exercised rule 13(4) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 to treat the claim as presented on 23 October 2019, and said that, had the matter been dealt with promptly, the defect could have been corrected administratively from that date. It also accepted the claimant's application for an extension of time under rule 13, noting that most of the delay had been caused by the Tribunal's administration.
On that basis, the tribunal revoked the rejection of the claim against Thomas Cook UK Travel Limited and directed that it be accepted as if presented on 23 October 2019. It confirmed the rejection of the claim against Alix Partners UK LLP because that entity was not the claimant's employer, was not the subject of the early conciliation process, and had no conceivable liability for a protective award. The proceedings were stayed immediately because Thomas Cook was in compulsory liquidation, and the tribunal noted that the claimant would later need to address whether permission to proceed had been obtained from the High Court.
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 | Reconsideration granted in relation to the rejection of the claimant's protective award complaint against Thomas Cook UK Travel Limited; the tribunal treated the claim as presented on 23 October 2019. The judgment did not determine the substantive merits because the proceedings were stayed due to compulsory liquidation. | Upheld | — | — |
| Other | Reconsideration refused in relation to Alix Partners UK LLP. The tribunal held it was not the claimant's employer, was not the subject of the early conciliation process, and had no conceivable liability in Employment Tribunal proceedings for a protective award. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- section 18A Employment Tribunals Act 1996
- regulation 3 Employment Tribunals (Early Conciliation: Exemptions and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2014
- rule 13 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- rule 13(4) Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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.