Case 4102028/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs K Thompson v EBS Systems Limited (In administration) — 2020
- Case reference
- 4102028/2020
- Decision date
- 12 August 2020
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Susan Walker
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs K Thompson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningNo response was presented to the claim. The respondent was in administration, and the administrator consented to the protective award claim proceeding. Employment Judge Walker therefore issued judgment on the available material under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013.
The tribunal declared that the respondent had failed to comply with its obligations under sections 188 and 188A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. It made a protective award under section 189 of that Act in favour of Mrs K Thompson.
The award was for a period of 90 days starting on 27 February 2020. The judgment does not record a monetary figure for the award, only the period of protection. The judgment was dated 10 August 2020 and entered in the register on 12 August 2020.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The tribunal treated the matter as a rule 21 decision on the papers and declared that the respondent had failed to comply with sections 188 and 188A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, making a protective award under section 189. The judgment does not state a monetary sum, only a 90-day award period. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
- sections 188, 188A and 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 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.