Case 3324885/2019 · Employment Tribunal

Ms K Needham v Travel And Financial Services Ltd and 1 other — 2022

Case reference: 3324885/2019
Decision date: 2 September 2022
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Ainscough Date

Indexed: 19 May 2026

Parties

3 named

Claimant

Ms K Needham

Respondents

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The claimant claimed a protective award alleging breach of the collective consultation requirements under the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The first respondent did not present a response, and the Official Receiver confirmed that the protective award claim would not be contested. The tribunal proceeded under Rule 21 without a hearing.

The tribunal found that the claimant was employed as a Regional Manager and that the first respondent employed over 20 employees in the Regional Manager group. The claimant was not a member of a recognised trade union or bargaining unit. The judgment records that the first respondent went into compulsory liquidation on 23 September 2019 and that there was no proper warning, notice, or consultation with recognised trade unions or the claimant, and no elected or appointed employee representatives for consultation.

The tribunal held that the first respondent was in breach of the duty under section 188 of the 1992 Act. It made a protective award under section 189 in favour of the claimant for the maximum protected period of 90 days commencing on 23 September 2019, subject to the recoupment provisions applying to such awards.

Claims and outcomes

1 finding recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Other	Protective award claim under sections 188 and 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The tribunal awarded remuneration for a 90-day protected period, but no monetary figure was stated.	Upheld	—	—

Legal tests applied

3 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.

Open official judgment PDF on gov.uk

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.