Case 4103051/2020 · Employment Tribunal
A Tinnion Mr James Smith (and Others) Lead v , Solicitor Middlebrooks Business Recovery & Advice — 2021
- Case reference
- 4103051/2020
- Decision date
- 29 June 2021
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Mr
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
A Tinnion Mr James Smith (and Others) Lead
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimants were given notice of dismissal on grounds of redundancy on 14 May 2020 while the respondent was acting as administrator of Specialised Castings Ltd, which had been in administration since 6 May 2020. The ET1 sought a protective award for a protected period of 90 days under s.189(2) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, on the basis that the respondent had breached ss.188 and 188A of that Act.
By email dated 18 March 2021, the respondent notified the tribunal and the claimants' solicitors that it consented to the continuation of the claim and to the protective award. The tribunal heard evidence from Mr K. Chalmers and Miss L. White, together with oral submissions from the claimants' solicitor, at the final hearing on 14 June 2021.
The tribunal held that the claim was well-founded and that the respondent had breached its duties under ss.188 and 188A. It therefore made a protective award under s.189(2) in respect of the claimants listed in the judgment, ordering the respondent to pay remuneration for a protected period of 90 days beginning on 14 May 2020, equal to 90 days' wages for each claimant. The judgment does not set out a single aggregated monetary total or separate cash figures for each claimant.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Protective award claim under s.189(2) TULRCA 1992 for alleged breaches of ss.188 and 188A. The tribunal ordered remuneration for a protected period of 90 days beginning on 14 May 2020, equal to 90 days' wages for each listed claimant, but the judgment does not state the monetary amount for each claimant. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.188 TULRCA 1992
- s.188A TULRCA 1992
- s.189(2) 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.