Case 4110766/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Cinzia Bonini & others as per schedule v Limited (in Liquidation) — 2022
- Case reference
- 4110766/2018
- Decision date
- 5 December 2022
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge L Doherty
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Cinzia Bonini & others as per schedule
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal reconsidered its judgment issued on 1 April 2019 under Rule 70 of the Employment Tribunal Rules. It found that reconsideration was necessary in the interests of justice and amended the earlier judgment in two respects.
The amendments recorded that Morag Russell was an exception to the reference to dismissed claimants because she had not been formally dismissed, but had resigned in the week ending 14 February as an employee affected by measures taken in connection with proposed dismissals under section 188(1) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The Tribunal also amended paragraph (6) of the earlier judgment to include Morag Russell.
Reasons were given orally. The respondent was not present and was not represented. The written judgment does not set out monetary awards or the full reasoning from the original 2019 judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trade union | The judgment is a Rule 70 reconsideration of a judgment issued on 1 April 2019. It amends that judgment to record that Morag Russell was not formally dismissed but resigned as an employee affected by measures connected with proposed dismissals under section 188(1) TULRCA 1992, and to include Morag Russell in paragraph (6). The text does not state any monetary award or full original claim outcomes. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 70 of the Employment Tribunal (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
- Section 188(1) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 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.