Case 3327527/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs N Pilling v Travel And Financial Services Ltd and 1 other — 2022
- Case reference
- 3327527/2019
- Decision date
- 25 February 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ainscough Date
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mrs N Pilling
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal issued judgment under rule 21 because the first respondent had not presented a response, the Official Receiver confirmed that the protective award claims would not be contested, and the Tribunal considered it possible to determine the claim without a hearing.
The Tribunal found that the claimant was employed by the first respondent, which employed over 20 employees at Peterborough Westpoint. The first respondent went into compulsory liquidation on 23 September 2019, and the claimant was notified of termination on 11 October 2019.
The Tribunal found there had been no proper warning, notice or consultation with recognised trade unions or the claimant, and no employee representatives had been elected or appointed for consultation. It held that the first respondent breached section 188 of the 1992 Act and made a protective award under section 189 for the maximum protected period of 90 days commencing on 23 September 2019.
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. No monetary amount was specified; the award was remuneration for a 90-day protected period. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 - Rule 21
- section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- section 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 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.