Case 4105987/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Ms F Lawlor and Others v (As per attached Schedule) Walker MacLeod Limited (in liquidation) — 2019
- Case reference
- 4105987/2019
- Decision date
- 29 October 2019
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Whitcombe
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms F Lawlor and Others
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimants were employed by the respondent, Walker MacLeod Limited (in liquidation). They were dismissed by reason of redundancy on 20 December 2018. The tribunal recorded that Stuart Robb of Leonard Curtis Recovery Ltd was appointed liquidator on 16 January 2019.
The tribunal found that the respondent did not inform and consult with the claimants in accordance with s.188 and s.188A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The claimants brought complaints under s.189 of that Act seeking a protective award for that failure.
The tribunal declared the claims well founded and made a protective award in favour of the claimants. It ordered remuneration for a protected period of 8 weeks from 20 December 2018. The extracted text does not state a monetary total for the award, so no cash figure can be recorded from the judgment text supplied.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Protective award claim under s.189 TULRCA 1992 arising from the respondent's failure to inform and consult under s.188 and s.188A; the judgment does not state a split monetary sum for this claim. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.188 TULRCA 1992
- s.188A TULRCA 1992
- s.189 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.