Case 8002295/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Number:8002295/2025 Mr J Hill v Adarma Limited (In Administration) — 2025
- Case reference
- 8002295/2025
- Decision date
- 20 November 2025
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Eccles Case
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Number:8002295/2025 Mr J Hill
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Employment Judge issued judgment on the available material under Rule 22 because no response was presented within the applicable time limit. The respondent, Adarma Limited (In Administration), was in administration, and the administrator consented to the continuation of the proceedings by letter dated 02 October 2025. The tribunal found that the claimant was entitled to bring the claim because it concerned a failure relating to the election of employee representatives, and the claimant had been dismissed as redundant.
The tribunal held that the complaint under sections 188 and 188A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 was well founded. It found that the respondent dismissed as redundant more than 100 employees at one establishment within a period of 45 days or less, that the claimant was dismissed as redundant on 14 July 2025, and that the respondent failed to ensure employee representatives were elected and then to consult with them as required.
As a result, the tribunal made a protective award in respect of the claimant as an employee dismissed as redundant at the respondent's establishment at 3rd Floor, Quay 1, 133 Fountainbridge, EH3 9QG. The judgment states that the respondent is ordered to pay remuneration for the protected period, which begins on 14 July 2025 and lasts for 90 days, but it does not specify a monetary figure in the extracted text.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Complaint under section 188 and section 188A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992; the tribunal made a protective award and ordered remuneration for the protected period. | Upheld | — | — |
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.