Case 4106995/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Ms L Taylor & others as per schedule v Hourstons Ltd (in Liquidation) — 2019
- Case reference
- 4106995/2019
- Decision date
- 10 September 2019
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Walker
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms L Taylor & others as per schedule
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy consent under Rule 64, the Employment Tribunal recorded that the claimants, listed in the schedule to case 4106995/2019 and others, were employed by Hourstons Ltd (in Liquidation) and were dismissed by reason of redundancy on 29 February 2019. The judgment notes that Linda Barr and Eileen Blackburn of French Duncan LLP were appointed as joint liquidators on 28 February 2019 and remained appointed at the date of judgment.
The Tribunal found that the respondent did not inform and consult with the claimants on a collective basis in accordance with ss.188 and 188A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, and that the duty to collectively consult had been triggered in relation to the redundancy dismissals. On that basis, the Tribunal held that the protective award claims were well founded and made a protective award in favour of the claimants.
The award was expressed as remuneration for a protected period of 8 weeks from 28 February 2019. The judgment also records that the separate claims for alleged non-payment of notice pay were withdrawn because the claimants had already been compensated in that respect through the Redundancy Payments Office.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Protective award claim under s.189 TULRCA 1992 following the respondent's admitted failure to collectively consult under ss.188 and 188A. Judgment issued by consent under Rule 64. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.188 and 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.