Case 4100263/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Crosskill v Filmhouse Trading Limited (In Administration) — 2024
- Case reference
- 4100263/2023
- Decision date
- 29 January 2024
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Sangster
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr P Crosskill
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Employment Judge issued judgment on the available material under rule 21 after no response was presented within the applicable time limit. The respondent was in administration, but the administrator had 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. The complaint that the respondent failed to comply with s.188 of the 1992 Act was found to be well founded.
The Tribunal found that the respondent dismissed as redundant more than 20 employees at one establishment within a period of 90 days or less and failed to carry out any consultation at all with the appropriate representatives of affected employees in accordance with s.188. A protective award was made in respect of each claimant, with the protected period beginning on 6 October 2022 and lasting 90 days. The extracted text does not state a quantified sum for the award.
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 text does not state a quantified monetary amount, only that remuneration is payable for the protected period. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.189(1)(a)-(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.