Case 4100507/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms A Smith v Belmont Filmhouse Limited (In Administration) — 2023
- Case reference
- 4100507/2023
- Decision date
- 26 July 2023
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Sangster
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms A Smith
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal proceeded under rule 21 because no response was presented within the applicable time limit. It recorded that the respondent was in administration, but the administrator had consented in a letter dated 26 January 2023 to the continuation of the proceedings. The judge found 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 held that the complaint that the respondent failed to comply with s.188 of the 1992 Act was well founded. It found that the respondent had dismissed as redundant more than 20 employees at one establishment within a period of 90 days or less, and that it failed to carry out any consultation at all with the appropriate representatives of affected employees in accordance with s.188.
As a result, the tribunal made a protective award in respect of the claimant and ordered the respondent to pay remuneration for the protected period. The judgment states that the protected period began on 6 October 2022 and lasted for 90 days. No monetary figure is stated 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 on the available material. The tribunal found the complaint under s.188 TULRCA 1992 well founded and made a protective award with a protected period of 90 days. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.189(1)(a), (b) or (c) TULRCA 1992
- s.188 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.