Case 4107036/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A A Shepherd v Centre Plant Limited (In Administration) — 2024
- Case reference
- 4107036/2023
- Decision date
- 18 April 2024
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge P O’Donnell
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A A Shepherd
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr A A Shepherd brought a protective award complaint on the basis that he had been dismissed as redundant without the consultation required by s188A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The respondent lodged no defence, and the Tribunal had already issued a Rule 21 judgment on 18 April 2024 upholding the claim and making a protective award.
The claimant then sought reconsideration because the claim form contained a typographical error about the dismissal date, which affected the protected period recorded in the earlier judgment. The Tribunal noted that the application was unopposed and said it had power to reconsider only if doing so was in the interests of justice. It referred to the need to balance finality with justice to both sides, citing Newcastle Upon Tyne City Council v Marsden, Trimble v Supertravel Ltd and Redding v EMI Leisure Ltd.
The Tribunal granted reconsideration, holding that the claimant should not lose the protective award because of a typographical error. It said the error did not affect the substantive finding about compliance with the consultation obligation, and the same decision would follow regardless of whether the dismissal date was 17 or 18 August 2023. The prior judgment was therefore varied so that the protected period started on 17 August 2023.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Protective award claim brought under s188A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The Tribunal had already upheld the claim under Rule 21; this judgment granted reconsideration to correct the protected period start date. The extracted text contains an apparent inconsistency in paragraph 3, which refers to the claimant's dismissal date as 17 August 2024, while paragraph 9 varies the prior judgment to 17 August 2023. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- Rule 70 reconsideration
- interests of justice
- Newcastle Upon Tyne City Council v Marsden
- Trimble v Supertravel Ltd
- Redding v EMI Leisure Ltd
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.