Case 4100031/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr H Rafferty v Belmont Filmhouse Limited (In Administration) — 2023
- Case reference
- 4100031/2023
- Decision date
- 25 May 2023
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Sangster
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr H Rafferty
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment on the papers in a claim against Belmont Filmhouse Limited (In Administration). The tribunal recorded that no response was presented within the applicable time limit, and that the administrator consented to the continuation of the proceedings by letter dated 18 January 2023.
The tribunal 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 was an employee dismissed as redundant. It found that the respondent dismissed as redundant more than 20 employees at one establishment within a period of 90 days or less.
On the merits, the tribunal found the complaint that the respondent failed to comply with s.188 of the 1992 Act to be well founded. It found that the respondent failed to carry out any consultation at all with the appropriate representatives of affected employees in accordance with s.188.
The tribunal therefore made a protective award in respect of each claimant and ordered the respondent to pay remuneration for the protected period. The protected period was stated to begin on 6 October 2022 and to last for 90 days. No monetary sum was set out in the extracted judgment text.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trade union | Rule 21 judgment. The tribunal found the complaint under s.188 TULRCA 1992 well founded, held that the respondent dismissed more than 20 employees at one establishment within 90 days or less, and found that no consultation at all took place with the appropriate representatives of affected employees. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.188 TULRCA 1992
- s.189(1)(a), (b) and (c) TULRCA 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.