Case 4107586/2017 · Employment Tribunal

L Doherty Mr Patrick Devlin & Others v UK Limited — 2018

Case reference: 4107586/2017
Decision date: 8 February 2018
Jurisdiction: Scotland
Judge: Employment Judge Ms
Venue: Glasgow

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

L Doherty Mr Patrick Devlin & Others

Respondent

UK Limited

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

This was a Rule 21 judgment in a multiple claim brought by Mr Patrick Devlin and four others against Misco UK Limited. The respondents did not lodge an ET3 and did not appear. On that basis, the tribunal determined the claim on the papers at Glasgow on 8 February 2018.

The tribunal found that the respondents failed to comply with their duties to inform and consult with the claimants under section 188 and 188(a) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The judgment records that those duties were not met.

As a result, the tribunal ordered a protective award under section 198(2) of the same Act. The award was for remuneration for a period of 90 days beginning on 19 October 2017. The extracted text does not state a monetary total or any individual apportionment between the claimants.

Claims and outcomes

1 finding recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Trade union	Rule 21 judgment: no ET3 was lodged. The tribunal found failure to comply with the duties to inform and consult under section 188 and 188(a) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. A protective award was made for remuneration for 90 days beginning on 19 October 2017, but the extracted text does not state a monetary total or per-claim split.	Upheld	—	—

Legal tests applied

3 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.

Open official judgment PDF on gov.uk

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.