Case 4100719/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms D Forsyth & others as per attached schedule v Watt Brothers (Glasgow And Edinburgh) Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 4100719/2020
- Decision date
- 1 July 2022
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge L Wiseman
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms D Forsyth & others as per attached schedule
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a rule 21 judgment on the papers because no response had been presented. On the material available, the tribunal found the claim well founded. It held that the respondent was under a duty to consult about dismissals under section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 and failed to do so.
The tribunal decided to make a protective award in respect of all employees made redundant by the respondent and listed on the attached schedule. It ordered the respondent to pay remuneration for the protected period, which began on 6 November 2019 and lasted 90 days. The extracted text does not state a split monetary amount or a bottom-line total award figure.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Rule 21 judgment on the papers. The tribunal found the respondent failed to comply with section 188 TULRCA 1992 and made a protective award under section 189 for the employees listed in the attached schedule. No individual monetary sum is stated in the extracted text. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
7 references- section 188 TULRCA 1992
- section 189 TULRCA 1992
- section 195 TULRCA 1992
- special circumstances / reasonably practicable test
- Susie Radin Limited v GMB [2004] IRLR 400
- The Bakers’ Union v Clarks of Hove Ltd [1978] IRLR 366
- In re Hartlebury Printers Ltd [1992] ICR 559
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.