Case 4102628/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Carty v And another set out in the attached schedule Dovetail Enterprises (1993) Limited (In Administration) — 2025
- Case reference
- 4102628/2025
- Decision date
- 31 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Kemp
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Carty
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Employment Judge issued judgment on the available material under Rule 22. The respondent, Dovetail Enterprises (1993) Limited (In Administration), did not contest the claim after a response from the Joint Administrator was received on 29 July 2025 and consent was given for the claims to proceed so that the claimants could claim a protective award.
The tribunal found that the respondent dismissed 20 or more employees as redundant at one establishment within a period of 90 days or less, on dates from 28 to 31 March 2025. The claimants were dismissed on 31 March 2025. The judgment records that the respondent failed to ensure that employee representatives were elected in accordance with section 188A and then failed to consult with them in accordance with section 188.
On that basis, the tribunal held that the complaint that the respondent failed to comply with section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 was well founded. It made a protective award in respect of the claimants, who were employees dismissed as redundant at the respondent's Dundee site, and ordered the respondent to pay remuneration for the protected period.
The protected period was stated to be 90 days beginning on 31 March 2025. The judgment does not specify a cash figure for the award in the extracted text, and it does not split any amount between the two claimants in the attached schedule.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trade union | Protective award under sections 188 and 188A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The judgment states that the claim was made in respect of the claimants in the attached schedule, including Mr J Carty and Mr P Hay, but no monetary split per claimant is set out. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.188 TULRCA 1992
- s.188A TULRCA 1992
- Rule 22 Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
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.