Case 4107198/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J McGinn v (and others per attached schedule) Regency (Ayrshire) Limited (In Liquidation) — 2024
- Case reference
- 4107198/2024
- Decision date
- 15 August 2024
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge J McCluskey
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J McGinn
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Employment Judge issued judgment on the available material under Rule 22 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 because no response was presented within the applicable time limit. The tribunal held that the claimant was entitled to bring the claim because it concerned a failure relating to the election of employee representatives, and because the claimant was an employee dismissed as redundant.
The tribunal found that the respondent dismissed 20 or more employees as redundant at one establishment within a period of 90 days or less. It further found that the respondent failed to ensure that employee representatives were elected in accordance with section 188A TULRCA and then failed to consult with them in accordance with section 188 TULRCA. On that basis, the complaint that the respondent failed to comply with section 188 of TULRCA was found to be well founded.
A protective award was made in respect of the claimants in the attached schedule who worked at the respondent’s establishment at 31 Caerlaverock Road, Prestwick, Ayrshire, KA9 1HP and were dismissed as redundant. The judgment states that the respondent is ordered to pay remuneration for the protected period, which begins on 15 August 2024 and lasts for 90 days. The extracted text does not state a separate monetary figure for the award.
The schedule attached to the judgment lists 46 linked cases, beginning with Mr J McGinn and ending with Mr Josh Robertson, all against Regency (Ayrshire) Limited (In Liquidation) c/o Begbies Traynor. The judgment records the decision as entered on 16 January 2025.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Protective award claim under section 188 TULRCA. The judgment finds the complaint well founded and orders remuneration for the protected period, but the extracted text does not state a monetary amount. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Rule 22 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- section 188 TULRCA
- section 188A TULRCA
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.