Case 4105576/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Corrigan and others (per attached schedule) v Viva Brazil Restaurants Limited (In Administration) — 2025
- Case reference
- 4105576/2024
- Decision date
- 14 February 2025
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge S MacLean
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Corrigan and others (per attached schedule)
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Employment Judge issued the judgment on the available material under Rule 22 because no response was presented within the applicable time limit. The respondent was in administration, but the administrators consented to the continuation of the proceedings on 25 June 2024. The Tribunal accepted that the claimants were entitled to bring the claim because it concerned a failure relating to the election of employee representatives and they had been dismissed as redundant, with no recognised trade union for collective bargaining purposes.
The Tribunal found the complaint well founded. It held that the respondent had dismissed more than 20 employees as redundant at one establishment within a period of 90 days or less, had 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 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.
A protective award was therefore made in respect of employees dismissed as redundant at the respondent's site at 87-91 Bothwell Street, Glasgow, G2 7HX. The judgment states that the respondent is ordered to pay remuneration for the protected period. The protected period begins on 07 February 2024 and lasts for 90 days.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trade union | The judgment concerns a failure to comply with the collective consultation requirements in sections 188 and 188A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 and the making of a protective award. No monetary amount is stated in the extracted text. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Rule 22 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- s.188 TULRCA 1992
- s.188A 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.