Case 6006989/2024 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Not in attendance Relied on Grounds of Resistance as their written submissions. — 2025
- Case reference
- 6006989/2024
- Decision date
- 25 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Laidler Members
- Panel members
- Ms C Smith, Mr C Davie
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal found that there had been no consultation within the meaning of s.188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. It also found that there was insufficient evidence to conclude that any special circumstances existed. On that basis, the complaint was found well founded and the Respondent was declared to have failed to comply with its obligations to consult under s.188.
The judgment states that the claimant had been dismissed as redundant on or around 29 April 2024. Because the Respondent had failed to comply with the consultation requirements, the Tribunal made a protective award in respect of the claimant.
The Tribunal ordered the Respondent to pay remuneration to the claimant for the protected period, which it fixed at 90 days. The judgment does not set out a separate monetary figure for the award in the extracted text.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Protective award under s.188 TULRCA 1992 for failure to consult in a redundancy situation; the judgment does not state a monetary sum, only that remuneration is payable for a protected period of 90 days. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.188 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.