VadeLab
AllowedEmployment Tribunal·england-and-wales·

Employer Failed to Consult Properly Before Redundancies: Claimants Win Protective Awards

Case No. · Judge Franey

📌 In brief

The Employment Tribunal ruled in favour of the claimants who argued that their employer failed to consult properly before making redundancies. As a result, they received protective awards under section 189 TULRCA 1992 for a period of 90 days starting from January 6th, 2025.

⚖️ Legal holding

An employer must provide adequate consultation with employees before making redundancies or significant changes to employment terms, failing which a protective award may be granted.

Topics

employmentredundancyconsultation

Provisions

📖 What the law says

Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 s.189

This section allows employees to file a complaint with an employment tribunal if their employer fails to comply with certain requirements regarding redundancy or changes to employment terms. If the complaint is found valid, the tribunal can declare it so and may order the employer to pay compensation for a period determined to be fair and equitable, not exceeding 180 days.

Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a solicitor.

📖 Technical summary

The Employment Tribunal ruled in favour of the claimants, finding that the employer failed to consult as required under section 189 TULRCA 1992.

📜 Headnote Official document

The Employment Tribunal ruled in favour of the claimants, finding that the employer failed to consult as required under section 189 TULRCA 1992. The protective awards were granted for a period of 90 days starting from January 6th, 2025.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

Case Number: 2401150/2025 & others (see attached [APPELLANT])

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS

Claimant: [redacted]

Respondents: [redacted] 2. Secretary of State for Business and Trade

JUDGMENT Employment Tribunals Procedure Rules 2024 – Rule 22

1. The first respondent has failed to present a valid response in time. The Secretary of State neither supports nor resists the claims. The administrators of the first respondent have consented to the claims proceeding. A determination can properly be made of the claims in accordance with rule 22 of the Rules.

2. The claims seeking a protective award under section 189 Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 are well-founded. The first respondent failed in its duty to consult the claimants set out in the attached [APPELLANT] to this judgment under section 188 of that Act.

3. The first respondent is ordered to pay each claimant set out in the [APPELLANT] to this judgment remuneration for the protected period of 90 days starting on 6 January 2025, the date the first dismissal took effect.

4. The recoupment regulations apply to the protective awards.

Approved by:

Regional Employment Judge Franey

30 April 2026

JUDGMENT SENT TO THE PARTIES ON

6 May 2026 .....................................................................

..................................................................... FOR THE TRIBUNAL OFFICE

ANNEX TO THE JUDGMENT (PROTECTIVE AWARDS)

Recoupment of Benefits

The following particulars are given pursuant to the Employment Protection (Recoupment of Benefits) Regulations 1996, SI 1996 No 2349.

The respondent is under a duty to give the Secretary of State the following information in writing: (a) the name, address and National Insurance number of every employee to whom the protective award relates; and (b) the date of termination (or proposed termination) of the employment of each such employee.

That information shall be given within 10 days, commencing on the day on which the Tribunal announced its judgment at the hearing. If the Tribunal did not announce its judgment at the hearing, the information shall be given within the period of 10 days, commencing on the day on which the relevant judgment was sent to the parties. In any case in which it is not reasonably practicable for the respondent to do so within those times, then the information shall be given as soon as reasonably practicable thereafter.

No part of the remuneration due to an employee under the protective award is payable until either (a) the Secretary of State has served a notice (called a Recoupment Notice) on the respondent to pay the whole or part thereof to the Secretary of State or (b) the Secretary of State has notified the respondent in writing that no such notice is to be served.

This is without prejudice to the right of an employee to present a complaint to an Employment Tribunal of the employer’s failure to pay remuneration under a protective award.

If the Secretary of State has served a Recoupment Notice on the respondent, the sum claimed in the Recoupment Notice in relation to each employee will be whichever is the less of:

(a) the amount (less any tax or social security contributions which fall to be deducted by the employer) accrued due to the employee in respect of so much of the protected period as falls before the date on which the Secretary of State receives from the employer the information referred to above; OR

(b) (i) the amount paid by way of or paid as on account of jobseeker’s allowance, income-related employment and support allowance or income support to the employee for any period which coincides with any part of the protected period falling before the date described in (a) above; or

(ii) in the case of an employee entitled to an award of universal credit for any period (“the UC period”) which coincides with any part of the period to which the prescribed element is attributable, any amount paid by way of or on account of universal credit for the UC period that would not have been paid if the person’s earned income for that period was the same as immediately before the period to which the prescribed element is attributable.

The sum claimed in the Recoupment Notice will be payable forthwith to the Secretary of State. The balance of the remuneration under the protective award is then payable to the employee, subject to the deduction of any tax or social security contributions.

A Recoupment Notice must be served within the period of 21 days after the Secretary of State has received from the respondent the above-mentioned information required to be given by the respondent to the Secretary of State or as soon as practicable thereafter.

After paying the balance of the remuneration (less tax and social security contributions) to the employee, the respondent will not be further liable to the employee. However, the sum claimed in a Recoupment Notice is due from the respondent as a debt to the Secretary of State, whatever may have been paid to the employee, and regardless of any dispute between the employee and the Secretary of State as to the amount specified in the Recoupment Notice.

[APPELLANT] Claimant Name 2401150/2025 Mrs [APPELLANT] 2401151/2025 Mrs [APPELLANT] 2401152/2025 Mrs [APPELLANT] [NAME] 2401153/2025 Mr [NAME] 2401154/2025 Miss [NAME] 2401155/2025 Miss [NAME] 2401156/2025 Mrs [NAME] [NAME] 2401157/2025 Miss [NAME] 2401158/2025 Mr [NAME] 2401159/2025 Mrs [NAME] 2401160/2025 Mr [NAME] 2401161/2025 Miss [NAME] 2401162/2025 Mr [NAME] 2401163/2025 Mr [NAME] 2401164/2025 Mr [NAME] 2401165/2025 Miss [NAME] 2401166/2025 Miss [NAME] 2401167/2025 Miss [NAME] 2401168/2025 Mr [NAME] 2401169/2025 Mr [NAME] 2401170/2025 Miss [NAME] 2401171/2025 Mr [NAME] 2401172/2025 Mr [NAME] 2401173/2025 Miss [NAME] 2401174/2025 Ms [NAME] 2401175/2025 Miss [NAME] 2401176/2025 Miss [NAME] 2401177/2025 Mr [NAME] 2401178/2025 Mrs [NAME]

2401179/2025 Mr [NAME] 2401180/2025 Miss [NAME] 2401181/2025 Miss [NAME] 2401182/2025 Mr [NAME] 2401183/2025 Mr [NAME] 2401184/2025 Mr [NAME] [NAME] 2401185/2025 Mr [NAME] [NAME] 2401186/2025 Mr [NAME] 2401187/2025 Mrs [NAME] 2401188/2025 Mr [NAME] 2401189/2025 Mrs [NAME] 2401190/2025 Mr [NAME] 2401191/2025 Miss [NAME] [NAME] 2401192/2025 Mr [NAME] [NAME] 2401193/2025 Mr [NAME] 2401194/2025 Miss [NAME] 2401195/2025 Mr [NAME] 2401196/2025 Mr [NAME] 2401197/2025 Miss [NAME] 2401198/2025 Mr [NAME] 2401199/2025 Miss [NAME] [NAME] 2401200/2025 Mr [NAME] 2401201/2025 Mr [NAME] 2401202/2025 Mr [NAME] 2401203/2025 Miss [NAME] 2401204/2025 Mr [NAME] 2401205/2025 Miss [NAME] 2401206/2025 Mr [NAME] [NAME] 2401207/2025 Miss [NAME] 2401208/2025 Mr [NAME] 2401209/2025 Miss [NAME] 2401210/2025 Mr [NAME] 2401211/2025 Mr [NAME] [NAME] 2401212/2025 Mr [NAME] 2401213/2025 Miss [NAME] 2401214/2025 Mr [NAME] 2401215/2025 Mrs [NAME] [NAME] 2401216/2025 Mr [NAME] 2401217/2025 Mr [NAME] 2401218/2025 Mrs [NAME] 2401219/2025 Mr [NAME] 2401220/2025 Miss [NAME] 2401221/2025 Mr [NAME] 2401222/2025 Mr [NAME] 2401223/2025 Ms [NAME] 2401224/2025 Miss [NAME] 2401225/2025 Mr [NAME] [NAME]

2401226/2025 Miss [NAME] 2401227/2025 Mr [NAME] [NAME] 2401228/2025 Mrs [NAME] [NAME]

📊 How courts decide similar cases

Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:

A snapshot of this collection — not a prediction of your case's outcome.

⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this

✅ Tends to be accepted

  • Employer failed to provide adequate consultation before making redundancies.
  • Employer did not comply with statutory requirements regarding payment of wages, notice periods, and holiday entitlements.
  • Employer breached the contract by failing to forward pension contributions.

Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The Employment Tribunal ruled in favour of the claimants, granting them protective awards under section 189 TULRCA 1992.

Who was involved?

Claimants and an employer who failed to consult properly before making redundancies.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court found that the employer had not fulfilled its duty of consultation under section 189 TULRCA 1992.

Which laws or rules were applied?

Section 189 Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 was applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The employer's failure to consult properly before making redundancies was the central issue.

Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?

For the claimants, as they won protective awards under section 189 TULRCA 1992.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone facing similar circumstances may be entitled to protective awards if their employer fails to consult properly before making redundancies.

What evidence or documents mattered?

The claimants provided evidence showing the lack of proper consultation by the employer.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, decisions from Employment Tribunals can typically be appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal.

Is it worth getting a solicitor for a case like this?

It is highly recommended to seek legal advice from a qualified solicitor for such cases.

Official source: Employment Tribunal — england-and-wales headnote and full judgment reproduced from the court's public records. View on the official source ↗Summary, holding, technical summary and questions: produced by Artificial Intelligence based on the official headnote and judgment. These are VadeLab’s own material and are not the work of the Court.This decision was issued by the Employment Tribunal and is reproduced from its published records. VadeLab is not affiliated with, and this page is not endorsed by, that court or tribunal.