Case 3331724/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs A Hooker v BAP Transport Limited (in Administration) and 1 other — 2019
- Case reference
- 3331724/2018
- Decision date
- 13 December 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Warren Representation
- Venue
- Bury St Edmunds
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mrs A Hooker
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal made a protective award for employees dismissed as redundant on or after 5 June 2018. It ordered that the employer pay remuneration for a protected period beginning on 5 June 2018 and lasting 90 days.
The claimant had received payments from the Secretary of State. Her claims of unfair dismissal, breach of contract, wages, holiday pay and redundancy payment were dismissed upon withdrawal.
The respondents did not attend. Reasons were given orally at the hearing, and the written judgment records that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within the applicable time limit.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The Tribunal made a protective award requiring the employer to pay remuneration for a 90-day protected period beginning on 5 June 2018 to employees dismissed as redundant on or after that date. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed upon withdrawal after the claimant received payments from the Secretary of State. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Dismissed upon withdrawal after the claimant received payments from the Secretary of State. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment describes this as a claim for wages; dismissed upon withdrawal after the claimant received payments from the Secretary of State. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Dismissed upon withdrawal after the claimant received payments from the Secretary of State. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Redundancy | Dismissed upon withdrawal after the claimant received payments from the Secretary of State. | Withdrawn | — | — |
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.