Case 6019991/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Seeley v SVL Healthcare Services Limited (In Administration) — 2024
- Case reference
- 6019991/2024
- Decision date
- 27 November 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Leith Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Seeley
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent failed to present a valid response on time, and the Secretary of State indicated that they neither supported nor resisted the claim. The Employment Judge decided that a determination could properly be made under rule 22.
The tribunal found that the respondent made more than 20 employees, including the claimant, redundant within a 90-day period at the relevant establishment. It also found that the respondent did not recognise a trade union for employees of the claimant's type, that no employee representatives had been elected, and that the respondent took no steps to arrange elections or to provide information to or consult with the claimant before dismissal.
The tribunal held that the respondent failed to comply with section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. It ordered the respondent to pay remuneration for the protected period of 90 days from the claimant's dismissal on 30 August 2024, but the judgment did not state a monetary amount.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Protective award claim arising from alleged failure to comply with section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992; no dedicated protective award claim_type exists in the locked taxonomy. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure
- section 188 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.