Case 4104162/2016 · Employment Tribunal
Loading page content.
TopCase 4104162/2016 · Employment Tribunal
N M Hosie (sitting alone) Mr Christopher Keenan First Claiman Represented by: Mr D Martyn Solicitor Mr David B Alexander
Both claimants were employees of Tullis Russell Papermakers Ltd (In Administration). The employer entered administration on 27 April 2015 and made a large number of redundancy dismissals over the following months. The tribunal found that, throughout the relevant period, the employer dismissed 20 or more employees at one establishment within 90 days or less, was obliged to consult appropriate representatives, and failed to facilitate the election of employee representatives. A separate Dundee Employment Tribunal judgment dated 6 April 2016 had already ordered a protective award of 56 days' pay for 372 employees, but these two claimants were not named in that judgment.
The tribunal accepted that Christopher Keenan had previously withdrawn an earlier protective-award claim after being told, on the administrator's information, that he had been dismissed on 27 April 2015; it later emerged that this was a confusion with another employee of the same name, and his actual dismissal had been on 28 August 2015. The claimants had already received payments from the Secretary of State for redundancy, arrears of wages, holiday pay and notice entitlement, but the Secretary of State refused protective-award payment because they were not on the earlier judgment list.
Applying ss.182, 184 and 190 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and the Insolvency Directive 2008/94/EC, the tribunal held that the earlier Employment Tribunal judgment was not determinative of entitlement to payment from the National Insurance Fund. It distinguished Harford and others v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, accepted the claimants' position as identical to those in the earlier list, and ordered the respondent to pay each claimant a protective award of 56 days' pay.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Protective award claim under s.189 TULRCA. The tribunal held that both claimants were entitled to payment from the National Insurance Fund and ordered payment of a protective award of 56 days' pay to each claimant. | Upheld | — | — |
The 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.
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.