Case 4105296/2016 · Employment Tribunal
Mr T Sommerville & Others (see attached list) v Bathgate Realisations Plant Ltd (In Administration) — 2017
- Case reference
- 4105296/2016
- Decision date
- 10 May 2017
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lucy Wiseman
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr T Sommerville & Others (see attached list)
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment issued on the available material after the joint administrator confirmed by letter dated 16 February 2017 that the respondent did not intend to defend the claim. The tribunal held that the claim was well founded and made a protective award.
The tribunal found that the claimants were employed by the respondent, that the respondent entered administration, and that the claimants were notified of the administration on 19 July 2016, the same day they were made redundant. It found that the respondent had a duty to consult the claimants or their elected representatives under sections 188 to 188A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 and that it failed to do so.
The award was expressed as remuneration for the protected period, which the tribunal said began on 19 July 2016 and lasted for 90 days, payable to all employees made redundant on that date. The judgment does not state a single monetary sum in the extracted text.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Protective award under section 188-188A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The tribunal found the claim well founded and made an award for remuneration for the protected period. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
- sections 188-188A 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.