Case 3328005/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Ward v Thomas Cook Group UK Travel Ltd (in compulsory liquidation) and 1 other — 2022
- Case reference
- 3328005/2019
- Decision date
- 25 March 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ainscough Date
Parties
3 namedKey findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal issued a Rule 21 judgment without a hearing because the first respondent had not presented a response and the Official Receiver confirmed that the protective award claims would not be contested. The first respondent was in compulsory liquidation, and High Court permission had been granted for the claim to proceed.
The Tribunal found that the first respondent employed over 20 employees at Peterborough Westpoint, that the claimant was not part of a recognised trade union bargaining unit, and that he was notified of termination on 31 October 2019 after the first respondent entered compulsory liquidation on 23 September 2019.
The Tribunal found there had been no proper warning, notice, or consultation with recognised trade unions or the claimant, and that no employee representatives had been elected or appointed for consultation under section 188A. It 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 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trade union | Protective award claim under sections 188 and 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The judgment awarded remuneration for a protected period of 90 days but did not state a monetary amount. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- 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.