Case 3325486/2019 · Employment Tribunal

Mrs A Edgley v Thomas Cook Group UK Travel Ltd (in compulsory liquidation) and 1 other — 2022

Case reference: 3325486/2019
Decision date: 12 January 2022
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Ainscough Date

Indexed: 19 May 2026

Parties

3 named

Claimant

Mrs A Edgley

Respondents

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The Tribunal gave judgment under rule 21 because the first respondent had not presented a response and the Official Receiver confirmed that the protective award claims would not be contested. The Secretary of State made legal submissions before judgment, and the Tribunal decided the protective award claim without a hearing on the information before it.

The Tribunal found that the first respondent employed over 20 employees at Peterborough Westpoint. The claimant was not a member of a recognised trade union nor part of the bargaining unit there. The first respondent went into compulsory liquidation on 23 September 2019, and the claimant was notified of termination on 8 November 2019.

The Tribunal found there was no proper warning, notice, or consultation with recognised trade unions or the claimant, and no employee representatives had been elected or appointed for consultation under section 188A of the 1992 Act. It held that the first respondent breached the duty under section 188 and made a protective award for the maximum protected period of 90 days beginning on 23 September 2019, subject to the recoupment regulations.

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; award expressed as 90 days' remuneration rather than a fixed monetary amount.	Upheld	—	—

Legal tests applied

5 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.