Case 4111438/2019 · Employment Tribunal
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4111438/2019 Mrs S Steventon v Border Cars Group Ltd (in Administration) — 2020
- Case reference
- 4111438/2019
- Decision date
- 7 February 2020
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Robert Gall
Parties
2 namedClaimant
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4111438/2019 Mrs S Steventon
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs S Steventon brought a claim for a Protective Award under the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 after her employment ended by redundancy on 19 July 2019. The tribunal recorded that no response had been presented, and it proceeded under Rule 21 on the available material. The claim was that there had been no consultation before termination.
The tribunal considered evidence from former employees in related proceedings, together with the claimant's claim form and the earlier judgment dated 5 February 2020. It accepted that the claimant had been told on the day her employment ended that she was redundant, that she had not been aware in advance that her job was at risk, and that there had been no consultation or advance notice. The tribunal also noted that there were no special circumstances justifying departure from the statutory consultation obligations.
On that basis, the tribunal found that the respondents failed to comply with section 188 of the 1992 Act and made a Protective Award under section 189 in favour of the claimant. The protected period was 90 days, running from 19 July 2019 to 17 October 2019. The extracted judgment does not state a monetary amount for the remuneration ordered, only the length of the protected period.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Protective award under s.189 TULR(C)A 1992 for failure to consult under s.188. The tribunal ordered remuneration for the protected period of 90 days running from 19 July 2019 to 17 October 2019, but the extracted text does not state a cash figure. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Rule 21
- s.188 TULR(C)A 1992
- s.189 TULR(C)A 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.