Case 8001808/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Elliot v CPR Realisations Ltd (in administration) — 2025
- Case reference
- 8001808/2024
- Decision date
- 18 August 2025
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge F Eccles
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Elliot
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a judgment by consent. The tribunal recorded that the claimant, Mr S Elliot, had been employed by CPR Realisations Limited (In Administration) as an In-Home Consultant and had been dismissed as redundant on 22 July 2024. By consent, the tribunal made a protective award in the claimant's favour under section 189(2) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.
The tribunal fixed the protected period under section 189(4) at 56 days beginning on the date that the first of the relevant dismissals took effect. It also noted that the recoupment regulations apply to the protective award. The judgment is limited to the agreed terms, states that it is restricted to the claimant in this claim, and records that the parties would not make costs applications arising from the judgment. No monetary amount for the award is stated in the text.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Protective award made by consent under section 189(2) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The protected period was 56 days beginning on the date of the first dismissal, and the judgment does not state a monetary figure. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Rule 62
- section 189(2) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- section 189(4) 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.