Case 3327612/2019 · Employment Tribunal

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

Case reference: 3327612/2019
Decision date: 28 February 2022
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Ainscough Date

Indexed: 19 May 2026

Parties

3 named

Claimant

Mr M Ananth

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 considered the file without a hearing.

The Tribunal found that the first respondent employed over 20 employees at Peterborough Westpoint, that the claimant was not a member of a recognised trade union or part of the bargaining unit there, and that the first respondent went into compulsory liquidation on 23 September 2019. The claimant was notified of termination of employment on 20 December 2019.

The Tribunal found there was no proper warning, notice or consultation with the recognised trade unions or the claimant, and no consultation with the claimant between 23 September 2019 and 20 December 2019. No employee representatives had been elected or appointed for consultation under section 188A. The Tribunal held that the first respondent breached section 188 of the 1992 Act and made a protective award for the maximum protected period of 90 days from 23 September 2019.

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; no fixed monetary amount was stated, only remuneration for a 90-day protected period.	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.