Case 3326365/2019 · Employment Tribunal

Mr M Heywood v Thomas Cook Group UK Travel Ltd (in compulsory liquidation) and 1 other — 2022

Case reference: 3326365/2019
Decision date: 24 February 2022
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Ainscough Date

Indexed: 19 May 2026

Parties

3 named

Claimant

Mr M Heywood

Respondents

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The claimant sought a protective award for 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 claims would not be contested. The Tribunal issued judgment under rule 21 without a hearing.

The Tribunal found that the first respondent employed over 20 employees at Peterborough Westpoint, entered compulsory liquidation on 23 September 2019, and notified the claimant of termination on 8 October 2019. It found there was no proper warning, notice, or consultation with recognised trade unions or the claimant, no consultation with the claimant between 23 September 2019 and 8 October 2019, 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 and 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. The recoupment regulations were stated to apply to the award.

Claims and outcomes

1 finding recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Other	Protective award claim under section 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 for failure to comply with collective consultation requirements under section 188. The judgment awarded remuneration for a 90-day protected period but did not state a 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.