Case 4107196/2019 · Employment Tribunal
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4107196/2019 Mr J Henderson v Duncan Adams Limited (in Administration) — 2019
- Case reference
- 4107196/2019
- Decision date
- 12 December 2019
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Susan Walker
Parties
2 namedClaimant
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4107196/2019 Mr J Henderson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment issued on the papers because no response had been presented. The tribunal noted that the respondent's joint administrator had confirmed by letter dated 10 October 2019 that he did not object to the claims continuing and did not intend to defend them. On the available material, Employment Judge Susan Walker determined the complaint under section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 was well founded.
The tribunal found that on or around 6 March 2019 the claimant was notified that his employment was ending by reason of redundancy. No consultation or notice was given before the employment was terminated, and the claimant was dismissed on 7 March 2019. The judgment also records that the respondent dismissed more than 20 employees by reason of redundancy within a 90 day period and that all of those employees were based at the same establishment.
No monetary award or protected period is stated in the extracted text, and no separate remedy figure is recorded. The judgment therefore records liability only on the material supplied.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Protective award / collective redundancy consultation complaint under section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992; the judgment says the complaint was well founded but states no monetary award. | Upheld | — | — |
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.