Case 4106024/2017 · Employment Tribunal
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4106024/2017 Miss J Reston v Misco UK Limited (In Administration) — 2019
- Case reference
- 4106024/2017
- Decision date
- 1 February 2019
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Mark Whitcombe
Parties
2 namedClaimant
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4106024/2017 Miss J Reston
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Miss J Reston, was employed by Misco UK Limited (In Administration). The respondent went into administration on 19 October 2017, and on that same date the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy.
The tribunal found that the respondent did not inform and consult with the claimant and other employees in accordance with ss.188 and 188A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The claimant brought a complaint under s.189 seeking a protective award for that failure.
On the available material and under rule 21, the tribunal held that the claim was well founded. It made a protective award in favour of the description of employees that included all employees dismissed within 90 days of 19 October 2017, and ordered remuneration for a protected period of 8 weeks from 19 October 2017. The judgment does not state a separate monetary sum for the award.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Protective award claim under s.189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 arising from failure to inform and consult under s.188 and s.188A. The judgment does not state a monetary figure; it orders remuneration for a protected period of 8 weeks from 19 October 2017. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- s.188 TULRCA 1992
- s.188A TULRCA 1992
- s.189 TULRCA 1992
- rule 21 Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
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.