Case 6004083/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr K Lowe v Formaplex Technologies Limited (in administration) and 1 other — 2026
- Case reference
- 6004083/2024
- Decision date
- 7 August 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Leverton
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr K Lowe
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal upheld Mr K Lowe's complaint of failure to consult about collective redundancies under section 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. It made a declaration and ordered Formaplex Technologies Limited (in administration) to pay him remuneration for a protected period of 90 days beginning on 26 January 2024. The judgment did not state a monetary total for the protective award.
The tribunal also upheld the breach of contract complaint concerning notice pay. It found that one month's notice pay remained outstanding and had not been paid by the Insolvency Service. It ordered Formaplex Technologies Limited to pay £2,639.43 in damages, calculated using gross pay at a weekly rate of £609.10. Reasons were given orally at the hearing.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Failure to consult about collective redundancies under section 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The tribunal made a declaration and a protective award of 90 days' remuneration beginning on 26 January 2024, payable by the First Respondent. No monetary total was stated for this award. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | One month's notice pay remained outstanding and had not been paid by the Insolvency Service. Damages were calculated using gross pay at a weekly rate of £609.10. | Upheld | — | £2,639 |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Section 189 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.