Case 4100920/2020 · Employment Tribunal
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4100920/2020 & Others (As per attached Schedule) Mrs T Cullen & Others v (As per attached Schedule) Houseology Design Group — 2021
- Case reference
- 4100920/2020
- Decision date
- 8 March 2021
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Laura Doherty
Parties
2 namedClaimant
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4100920/2020 & Others (As per attached Schedule) Mrs T Cullen & Others
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningNo response had been presented, so Employment Judge Doherty issued a rule 21 judgment on the available material. The tribunal found that the respondents were in breach of their obligations under section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.
The judgment states that a protective award was to be made in respect of the claimants in the attached schedule, who had been dismissed as redundant. It records that the protected period began on 23 January 2020 and ran for 90 days. The extracted text does not state a monetary figure or set out any separate arithmetic for an award.
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 respondents were in breach of section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 and ordered a protective award for the claimants listed in the attached schedule, who were dismissed as redundant. The protected period began on 23 January 2020 and lasted 90 days. No monetary figure was stated in the extracted text. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- 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.