Case 4103160/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr N Bone v No appearance and No representation The ADF Partnership Limited SC087602 — 2020
- Case reference
- 4103160/2019
- Decision date
- 24 July 2020
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge L Doherty
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr N Bone
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimants brought conjoined claims under section 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, alleging a failure to consult in accordance with section 188. The hearing took place by telephone on 21 July 2020. Mr Bone and Mr Coyne appeared; the remaining claimants did not appear, and the respondent also did not appear.
The tribunal found that ADF Partnership Ltd was an architectural practice employing 27 staff. On 25 February 2019 all staff, including the claimants, were told that the company was going into provisional liquidation and their employment was terminated on that date. The tribunal found there had been no prior warning or consultation before that announcement, and that all members of staff were made redundant on 25 February 2019.
On those facts, the tribunal was satisfied that there had been no consultation as required by section 188 of TULCRA and that more than 20 employees had been made redundant. No reason was advanced to explain the lack of consultation. The tribunal therefore held that the respondent was in breach of its obligations and ordered a protective award for the claimants who were dismissed as redundant, with the protected period beginning on 25 February 2019 and lasting 90 days.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Claim presented under s.189 TULCRA 1992 for failure to consult under s.188; the tribunal found a breach and made a protective award for a protected period of 90 days from 25 February 2019. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.188 TULCRA 1992
- s.189 TULCRA 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.