Case 4100025/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Hull & others as per attached schedule v Filmhouse Trading Limited (In Administration) — 2023
- Case reference
- 4100025/2023
- Decision date
- 25 May 2023
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Sangster
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Hull & others as per attached schedule
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal issued this as a Rule 21 judgment on the available material because no response was presented within the time limit. It recorded that the respondent was in administration, but the administrator had consented to the continuation of the proceedings by letter dated 18 January 2023. The tribunal also held that the claimant was entitled to bring the claim because none of the situations in s.189(1)(a), (b) or (c) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 applied and the claimant had been dismissed as redundant.
The tribunal found that the complaint under s.188 TULRCA 1992 was well founded. It accepted that the respondent dismissed more than 20 employees at one establishment within a period of 90 days or less, and that there had been no consultation at all with the appropriate representatives of affected employees. On that basis, it made a protective award in respect of each claimant.
The protected period was held to begin on 6 October 2022 and to last for 90 days. The extracted text does not state a separate monetary figure for the award, only that remuneration is payable for the protected period.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trade union | Protective award under s.188 TULRCA 1992; the extracted judgment does not state a quantified monetary sum for this claimant. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.189(1)(a), (b) or (c) TULRCA 1992
- s.188 TULRCA 1992
- Rule 21 Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
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.