GMB and others v Wade Ceramics Ltd (in administration) and Secretary of State for Business and Trade: 1302690/2023 and others
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Case No 1302690/2023, 1302822/2023, 1301829/2023
Between
(1) GMB and others (case 1302690/2023 and others) (2) Mr M McCue (case 1302822/2023) (3) Mr A Kulesza and others (case 1301829/2023 and others)Claimant(1) Wade Ceramics Ltd (in administration) (2) Secretary of State for Business and TradeRespondent
Before
Employment Judge Faulkner (on the papers)Date 28 August 2024
[1]In this Judgment (and in the Reasons below), “the Claimants” means those listed in the Schedule to it. For the avoidance of doubt, the term does not include the GMB.[2]The Claimants were employed by the First Respondent and were among at least 60 employees who were dismissed as redundant on 2 December 2022 and whose place of work was Bessemer Drive, Stoke on Trent, ST1 5GR. The First Respondent went into administration on 2 December 2022.[3]I declare that the complaints that the First Respondent failed to comply with the requirements of section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 are well founded.[4]I make a protective award in respect of all the Claimants and order the First Respondent to pay to each of the Claimants remuneration for the protected period of 90 days beginning on 2 December 2022.[5]A Recoupment Notice is attached. Case Nos: 1302690/2023, 1302822/2023, 1301829/2023 and others 2 REASONS Complaint[1]All of the Claims concern a single complaint by all of the Claimants that the First Respondent failed to comply with the requirements of section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (“the Act”). The complaints were brought pursuant to section 189 of the Act. All of the Claims were presented within the statutory time limit.[2]The claimants in case numbers 1302690/2023 and others (“Claim 1”) are the GMB union and 23 individuals who it suggested are (or were at the relevant time) members of the union. They are represented by Simpsons Solicitors. It appears that Claim 1 included the individual claimants in case the Tribunal was not satisfied that the GMB was recognised by the First Respondent.[3]There were four other named prospective individual claimants in respect of whom ACAS issued a multiple Early Conciliation Certificate prior to the presentation of Claim 1 – namely Darren Adams, Reginald Harper, Nigel Joynson and William Moulton – but when the Tribunal asked that Simpsons Solicitors confirm the names of the claimants in that Claim, their names were not included in the resulting list.[4]Mr McCue is the sole claimant in case number 1302822/2023 (“Claim 2”). He is represented by Thompsons Solicitors.[5]The claimants in case numbers 1301829/2023 and others (“Claim 3”) were an additional 36 individuals. They are represented by Griffin Legal. Some of the claimants in Claim 3 are also claimants in Claim 1 – Annette Barker, Kathleen Mellor, and Philip Brown. I have therefore included them in the Schedule only under Claim 1.[6]There is a claimant with the name of Robert Dimond in both Claims 1 and 3. The respective representatives have provided different addresses for him, but I have assumed that it is the same individual, and have therefore included him in the Schedule only in respect of Claim 1. There was one other claimant named in the original list provided by Griffin Legal, namely Tom Gregory. His name was not however included in the latest list, provided in July 2024, and I have therefore assumed he is not a claimant within Claim 3.[7]No Response was presented by the First Respondent. I am satisfied that in respect of all three Claims the Administrators for the First Respondent have provided consent for them to proceed. The Second Respondent presented a Response that indicated it did not accept or resist the Claims. It set out a summary of the relevant law which it asked the Tribunal to consider. Hearing[8]As notified to the parties, this Hearing was conducted on the papers. There was therefore no appearance or representation by any of them. The Claimants provided the statements referred to below. My findings of fact that now follow are based on those statements, together of course with the Claim Forms and the Case Nos: 1302690/2023, 1302822/2023, 1301829/2023 and others 3 Second Respondent’s Response. Facts[9]It is not disputed that all of the Claimants were employed by the First Respondent at Bessemer Drive, Stoke on Trent, ST1 5GR.[10]In her statement dated 23 May 2024, Wendy Grievson of GMB Midlands said that she was the GMB representative for its members in Claim 1 (this was not all of the Claim 1 claimants). She went on to say that the GMB were recognised by the First Respondent at its workplace in Bessemer Drive, but did not say in relation to which categories of employees and then went on to say that there was no recognition agreement. It is not clear whether by that she meant that there was no written recognition agreement or that there was no such agreement at all. In his statement dated 16 April 2023, Mr McCue said that no trade union was recognised by the First Respondent, though in his Particulars of Claim he said that his trade union was not recognised. He did not say which union that was.[11]Whilst of course there can be recognition of a trade union without a written recognition agreement, given the ambiguity and lack of clarity in the evidence, I find that it is not established on the facts before me that the GMB, or indeed any trade union, was recognised by the First Respondent in relation to any category of employees.[12]All of the Claimants were dismissed on the appointment of the First Respondent’s Administrators, with effect from 2 December 2022.[13]The First Respondent did not engage in any consultation with the Claimants, or with the GMB on behalf of any of them, or with any other employee representatives of any description, about the dismissals. It did not make arrangements for the election of employee representatives for the purposes of such consultation.[14]No information was provided to the Claimants, the GMB on behalf of any of them, nor any other employee representatives of any description regarding the dismissals.[15]No case has been made suggesting that there were special circumstances which rendered it not reasonably practicable to provide information or consult about the dismissals. The law[16]The Act provides as follows at section 188, so far as relevant:(1) Where an employer is proposing to dismiss as redundant 20 or more employees at one establishment within a period of 90 days or less, the employer shall consult about the dismissals all the persons who are appropriate representatives of any of the employees who may be affected by the proposed dismissals or may be affected by measures taken in connection with those dismissals. (1A) The consultation shall begin in good time and in any event— Case Nos: 1302690/2023, 1302822/2023, 1301829/2023 and others 4 (a) where the employer is proposing to dismiss 100 or more employees as mentioned in subsection (1), at least 45 days, and (b) otherwise, at least 30 days, before the first of the dismissals takes effect. (1B) For the purposes of this section the appropriate representatives of any affected employees are – (a) if the employees are of a description in respect of which an independent trade union is recognised by their employer, representatives of the trade union, or (b) in any other case, whichever of the following employee representatives the employer chooses: (i) employee representatives appointed or elected by the affected employees otherwise than for the purposes of this section, who (having regard to the purposes for and the method by which they were appointed or elected) have authority from those employees to receive information and to be consulted about the proposed dismissals on their behalf; (ii) employee representatives elected by the affected employees, for the purposes of this section, in an election satisfying the requirements of section 188A(1).(2) The consultation shall include consultation about ways of— (a) avoiding the dismissals, (b) reducing the numbers of employees to be dismissed, and (c) mitigating the consequences of the dismissals, and shall be undertaken by the employer with a view to reaching agreement with the appropriate representatives.
(h) the parts of the employer's undertaking in whic
[17]Section 188A of the Act sets out the requirements for the election of employee representatives. As that did not take place, I do not need to set out that provision.[18]The Act also provides as follows at section 189, again so far as relevant:(1) Where an employer has failed to comply with a requirement of section 188 …, a complaint may be presented to an employment tribunal on that ground– (a) in the case of a failure relating to the election of employee representatives, by any of the affected employees or by any of the employees who have been dismissed as redundant; (b) in the case of any other failure relating to employee representatives, by any of the employee representatives to whom the failure related, (c) in the case of failure relating to representatives of a trade union, by the trade union, and (d) in any other case, by any of the affected employees or by any of the employees who have been dismissed as redundant.(2) If the tribunal finds the complaint well-founded it shall make a declaration to that effect and may also make a protective award.(3) A protective award is an award in respect of one or more descriptions of employees— (a) who have been dismissed as redundant, or whom it is proposed to dismiss as redundant, and Case Nos: 1302690/2023, 1302822/2023, 1301829/2023 and others 6 (b) in respect of whose dismissal or proposed dismissal the employer has failed to comply with a requirement of section 188, ordering the employer to pay remuneration for the protected period.(4) The protected period— (a) begins with the date on which the first of the dismissals to which the complaint relates takes effect, or the date of the award, whichever is the earlier, and (b) is of such length as the tribunal determines to be just and equitable in all the circumstances having regard to the seriousness of the employer's default in complying with any requirement of section 188; but shall not exceed 90 days.(5) An employment tribunal shall not consider a complaint under this section unless it is presented to the tribunal – (a) before the date on which the last of the dismissals to which the complaint relates takes effect, or (b) during the period of three months beginning with that date …(6) If on a complaint under this section a question arises— (a) whether there were special circumstances which rendered it not reasonably practicable for the employer to comply with any requirement of section 188, or (b) whether he took all such steps towards compliance with that requirement as were reasonably practicable in those circumstances, it is for the employer to show that there were and that he did.[19]Section 195 of the Act provides:(1) In this Chapter references to dismissal as redundant are references to dismissal for a reason not related to the individual concerned or for a number of reasons all of which are not so related.(2) For the purposes of any proceedings under this Chapter, where an employee is or is proposed to be dismissed it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that he is or is proposed to be dismissed as redundant.[20]Insolvency is not of itself a special circumstance as defined in section 188 – The Bakers’ Union v Clarks of Hove Ltd [1978] IRLR 366 and In re Hartlebury Printers Ltd and others (in liquidation) [1992] ICR 559.[21]As for the amount of any protective award, it was said in Susie Radin Limited v GMB [2004] IRLR 400 that the award is a sanction for breach of the Act, not compensation for the Claimants, and that where there has been a complete failure to comply with the Act, a Tribunal may start with the maximum award and reduce it only if there are mitigating circumstances justifying that course of action. Case Nos: 1302690/2023, 1302822/2023, 1301829/2023 and others 7 Conclusions[22]As set out in my findings of fact above, all of the Claimants were employed by the Respondent, at one establishment.[23]All of them – and there are more than twenty – were dismissed, on the same date. They were plainly therefore affected employees for the purposes of the Act.[24]I can presume that they were dismissed as redundant as defined by section 195 of the Act both because it is self-evident and the contrary has not been proved.[25]There was a complete failure to consult (and provide the information to enable consultation) before the dismissals took effect.[26]Given my conclusions about the absence of trade union recognition, the First Respondent had the option to either consult other existing representatives of the affected employees or representatives specifically elected for the purposes of redundancy consultation under the Act. It did neither.[27]There was a complete failure to comply with section 188. It has not been shown that there were special circumstances rendering compliance not reasonably practicable, noting the case law regarding insolvency above.[28]In the absence, as I conclude there was, of any appropriate representatives, all of the Claimants were entitled to bring their complaints to the Tribunal. For the reasons I have set out, their complaints are well-founded.[29]It is clearly appropriate to make a protective award. In line with the decision in Susie Radin, it is just and equitable that the length of the protected period be the maximum 90 days. This reflects the seriousness of the First Respondent’s breach of its obligations. I have no evidence before me which would suggest that there are mitigating circumstances justifying a reduction.[30]I therefore make a protective award in respect of all the Claimants and order the First Respondent to pay to each of the Claimants remuneration for the protected period of 90 days beginning on 2 December 2022. Signed by: Employment Judge Faulkner Signed on: 28 August 2024 Case Nos: 1302690/2023, 1302822/2023, 1301829/2023 and others 8 Note Public access to employment tribunal decisions Judgments and reasons for the judgments are published, in full, online at www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal-decisions shortly after a copy has been sent to the claimant(s) and respondent(s) in a case. Schedule – the Claimants Claim 1 Angela Anderson Anthony Bailey Annette Barker Susan Bourne Philip Brown David Chilton Steven Clewlow Robert Dimond David Dutton Gaynor Grocott Steven Mayer Kathleen Mellor Samual Oakes Kevin Perry Jeffrey Roberts Claire Strachan Sharon Stubbs Denise Taylor Kelvin Thomas Mark Wilshaw Kevin Wright Claim 2 Mark McCue Claim 3 Adrian Kulesza Agnieszka Wasik Andrea Billinge Andrew Green Angela Trigg Bartosz Pietkiewicz Callen Lumsdale Cezak Dominik Christopher Shenton[34]Craig Wasley Case Nos: 1302690/2023, 1302822/2023, 1301829/2023 and others 9 Cyril Roberts Daniel Farrell Diane Abbotts Gary Breeze Ian Deaville Jack Copeland Jenny Speakman Julie Robinson Kerris Simpson Lindsay Christopher Cotton Lisa Hughes Michelle Allen Natalia Liskowicz Ryan Abbotts Shemelis Assafa Stephen Chadwick Stephen Cole Stuart Shickell Teresa Towey Tim Colclough Tracey Keenan Tracy Cooper Tracy Bryan[60]Yonatan Kahsai Case Nos: 1302690/2023, 1302822/2023, 1301829/2023 and others 1 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimants:(1) GMB and others (case 1302690/2023 and others)(2) Mr M McCue (case 1302822/2023)(3) Mr A Kulesza and others (case 1301829/2023 and others) Respondents: (1) Wade Ceramics Ltd (in administration) (2) Secretary of State for Business and Trade Heard at: Midlands West On: 28 August 2024 Before: Employment Judge Faulkner (on the papers) CORRECTED JUDGMENT[1]In this Judgment (and in the Reasons below), “the Claimants” means those listed in the Schedule to it. For the avoidance of doubt, the term does not include the GMB.[2]The Claimants were employed by the First Respondent and were among at least 60 employees who were dismissed as redundant on 2 December 2022 and whose place of work was Bessemer Drive, Stoke on Trent, ST1 5GR. The First Respondent went into administration on 2 December 2022.[3]I declare that the complaints that the First Respondent failed to comply with the requirements of section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 are well founded.[4]I make a protective award in respect of all the Claimants and order the First Respondent to pay to each of the Claimants remuneration for the protected period of 90 days beginning on 2 December 2022.[5]A Recoupment Notice is attached. Case Nos: 1302690/2023, 1302822/2023, 1301829/2023 and others 2 CORRECTED REASONS Complaint[1]All of the Claims concern a single complaint by all of the Claimants that the First Respondent failed to comply with the requirements of section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (“the Act”). The complaints were brought pursuant to section 189 of the Act. All of the Claims were presented within the statutory time limit.[2]The claimants in case numbers 1302690/2023 and others (“Claim 1”) are the GMB union and 23 individuals who it suggested are (or were at the relevant time) members of the union. They are represented by Simpsons Solicitors. It appears that Claim 1 included the individual claimants in case the Tribunal was not satisfied that the GMB was recognised by the First Respondent.[3]There were four other named prospective individual claimants in respect of whom ACAS issued a multiple Early Conciliation Certificate prior to the presentation of Claim 1 – namely Darren Adams, Reginald Harper, Nigel Joynson and William Moulton – but when the Tribunal asked that Simpsons Solicitors confirm the names of the claimants in that Claim, their names were not included in the resulting list.[4]Mr McCue is the sole claimant in case number 1302822/2023 (“Claim 2”). He is represented by Thompsons Solicitors.[5]The claimants in case numbers 1301829/2023 and others (“Claim 3”) were an additional 36 individuals. They are represented by Griffin Legal. Some of the claimants in Claim 3 are also claimants in Claim 1 – Annette Barker, Kathleen Mellor, and Philip Brown. I have therefore included them in the Schedule only under Claim 1.[6]There is a claimant with the name of Robert Dimond in both Claims 1 and 3. The respective representatives have provided different addresses for him, but I have assumed that it is the same individual, and have therefore included him in the Schedule only in respect of Claim 1. There was one other claimant named in the original list provided by Griffin Legal, namely Tom Gregory. His name was not however included in the latest list, provided in July 2024, and I have therefore assumed he is not a claimant within Claim 3.[7]No Response was presented by the First Respondent. I am satisfied that in respect of all three Claims the Administrators for the First Respondent have provided consent for them to proceed. The Second Respondent presented a Response that indicated it did not accept or resist the Claims. It set out a summary of the relevant law which it asked the Tribunal to consider. Hearing[8]As notified to the parties, this Hearing was conducted on the papers. There was therefore no appearance or representation by any of them. The Claimants provided the statements referred to below. My findings of fact that now follow are based on those statements, together of course with the Claim Forms and the Case Nos: 1302690/2023, 1302822/2023, 1301829/2023 and others 3 Second Respondent’s Response. Facts[9]It is not disputed that all of the Claimants were employed by the First Respondent at Bessemer Drive, Stoke on Trent, ST1 5GR.[10]In her statement dated 23 May 2024, Wendy Grievson of GMB Midlands said that she was the GMB representative for its members in Claim 1 (this was not all of the Claim 1 claimants). She went on to say that the GMB were recognised by the First Respondent at its workplace in Bessemer Drive, but did not say in relation to which categories of employees and then went on to say that there was no recognition agreement. It is not clear whether by that she meant that there was no written recognition agreement or that there was no such agreement at all. In his statement dated 16 April 2023, Mr McCue said that no trade union was recognised by the First Respondent, though in his Particulars of Claim he said that his trade union was not recognised. He did not say which union that was.[11]Whilst of course there can be recognition of a trade union without a written recognition agreement, given the ambiguity and lack of clarity in the evidence, I find that it is not established on the facts before me that the GMB, or indeed any trade union, was recognised by the First Respondent in relation to any category of employees.[12]All of the Claimants were dismissed on the appointment of the First Respondent’s Administrators, with effect from 2 December 2022.[13]The First Respondent did not engage in any consultation with the Claimants, or with the GMB on behalf of any of them, or with any other employee representatives of any description, about the dismissals. It did not make arrangements for the election of employee representatives for the purposes of such consultation.[14]No information was provided to the Claimants, the GMB on behalf of any of them, nor any other employee representatives of any description regarding the dismissals.[15]No case has been made suggesting that there were special circumstances which rendered it not reasonably practicable to provide information or consult about the dismissals. The law[16]The Act provides as follows at section 188, so far as relevant:(1) Where an employer is proposing to dismiss as redundant 20 or more employees at one establishment within a period of 90 days or less, the employer shall consult about the dismissals all the persons who are appropriate representatives of any of the employees who may be affected by the proposed dismissals or may be affected by measures taken in connection with those dismissals. (1A) The consultation shall begin in good time and in any event— Case Nos: 1302690/2023, 1302822/2023, 1301829/2023 and others 4 (a) where the employer is proposing to dismiss 100 or more employees as mentioned in subsection (1), at least 45 days, and (b) otherwise, at least 30 days, before the first of the dismissals takes effect. (1B) For the purposes of this section the appropriate representatives of any affected employees are – (a) if the employees are of a description in respect of which an independent trade union is recognised by their employer, representatives of the trade union, or (b) in any other case, whichever of the following employee representatives the employer chooses: (i) employee representatives appointed or elected by the affected employees otherwise than for the purposes of this section, who (having regard to the purposes for and the method by which they were appointed or elected) have authority from those employees to receive information and to be consulted about the proposed dismissals on their behalf; (ii) employee representatives elected by the affected employees, for the purposes of this section, in an election satisfying the requirements of section 188A(1).(2) The consultation shall include consultation about ways of— (a) avoiding the dismissals, (b) reducing the numbers of employees to be dismissed, and (c) mitigating the consequences of the dismissals, and shall be undertaken by the employer with a view to reaching agreement with the appropriate representatives.
(h) the parts of the employer's undertaking in whic
[17]Section 188A of the Act sets out the requirements for the election of employee representatives. As that did not take place, I do not need to set out that provision.[18]The Act also provides as follows at section 189, again so far as relevant:(1) Where an employer has failed to comply with a requirement of section 188 …, a complaint may be presented to an employment tribunal on that ground– (a) in the case of a failure relating to the election of employee representatives, by any of the affected employees or by any of the employees who have been dismissed as redundant; (b) in the case of any other failure relating to employee representatives, by any of the employee representatives to whom the failure related, (c) in the case of failure relating to representatives of a trade union, by the trade union, and (d) in any other case, by any of the affected employees or by any of the employees who have been dismissed as redundant.(2) If the tribunal finds the complaint well-founded it shall make a declaration to that effect and may also make a protective award.(3) A protective award is an award in respect of one or more descriptions of employees— (a) who have been dismissed as redundant, or whom it is proposed to dismiss as redundant, and Case Nos: 1302690/2023, 1302822/2023, 1301829/2023 and others 6 (b) in respect of whose dismissal or proposed dismissal the employer has failed to comply with a requirement of section 188, ordering the employer to pay remuneration for the protected period.(4) The protected period— (a) begins with the date on which the first of the dismissals to which the complaint relates takes effect, or the date of the award, whichever is the earlier, and (b) is of such length as the tribunal determines to be just and equitable in all the circumstances having regard to the seriousness of the employer's default in complying with any requirement of section 188; but shall not exceed 90 days.(5) An employment tribunal shall not consider a complaint under this section unless it is presented to the tribunal – (a) before the date on which the last of the dismissals to which the complaint relates takes effect, or (b) during the period of three months beginning with that date …(6) If on a complaint under this section a question arises— (a) whether there were special circumstances which rendered it not reasonably practicable for the employer to comply with any requirement of section 188, or (b) whether he took all such steps towards compliance with that requirement as were reasonably practicable in those circumstances, it is for the employer to show that there were and that he did.[19]Section 195 of the Act provides:(1) In this Chapter references to dismissal as redundant are references to dismissal for a reason not related to the individual concerned or for a number of reasons all of which are not so related.(2) For the purposes of any proceedings under this Chapter, where an employee is or is proposed to be dismissed it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that he is or is proposed to be dismissed as redundant.[20]Insolvency is not of itself a special circumstance as defined in section 188 – The Bakers’ Union v Clarks of Hove Ltd [1978] IRLR 366 and In re Hartlebury Printers Ltd and others (in liquidation) [1992] ICR 559.[21]As for the amount of any protective award, it was said in Susie Radin Limited v GMB [2004] IRLR 400 that the award is a sanction for breach of the Act, not compensation for the Claimants, and that where there has been a complete failure to comply with the Act, a Tribunal may start with the maximum award and reduce it only if there are mitigating circumstances justifying that course of action. Case Nos: 1302690/2023, 1302822/2023, 1301829/2023 and others 7 Conclusions[22]As set out in my findings of fact above, all of the Claimants were employed by the Respondent, at one establishment.[23]All of them – and there are more than twenty – were dismissed, on the same date. They were plainly therefore affected employees for the purposes of the Act.[24]I can presume that they were dismissed as redundant as defined by section 195 of the Act both because it is self-evident and the contrary has not been proved.[25]There was a complete failure to consult (and provide the information to enable consultation) before the dismissals took effect.[26]Given my conclusions about the absence of trade union recognition, the First Respondent had the option to either consult other existing representatives of the affected employees or representatives specifically elected for the purposes of redundancy consultation under the Act. It did neither.[27]There was a complete failure to comply with section 188. It has not been shown that there were special circumstances rendering compliance not reasonably practicable, noting the case law regarding insolvency above.[28]In the absence, as I conclude there was, of any appropriate representatives, all of the Claimants were entitled to bring their complaints to the Tribunal. For the reasons I have set out, their complaints are well-founded.[29]It is clearly appropriate to make a protective award. In line with the decision in Susie Radin, it is just and equitable that the length of the protected period be the maximum 90 days. This reflects the seriousness of the First Respondent’s breach of its obligations. I have no evidence before me which would suggest that there are mitigating circumstances justifying a reduction.[30]I therefore make a protective award in respect of all the Claimants and order the First Respondent to pay to each of the Claimants remuneration for the protected period of 90 days beginning on 2 December 2022. _____________________________________ Signed by: Employment Judge Faulkner Signed on: 28 August 2024 Date of corrected Judgment and Reasons: Signed on: 30 August 2024 Note Public access to employment tribunal decisions Judgments and reasons for the judgments are published, in full, online at www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal-decisions shortly after a copy has been sent to the claimant(s) and respondent(s) in a case. Case Nos: 1302690/2023, 1302822/2023, 1301829/2023 and others 8 Schedule – the Claimants Claim 1 Angela Anderson Anthony Bailey Annette Barker Susan Bourne Philip Brown David Chilton Steven Clewlow Robert Dimond David Dutton Gaynor Grocott Steven Mayer Kathleen Mellor Samual Oakes Kevin Perry Jeffrey Roberts Claire Strachan Sharon Stubbs Denise Taylor Kelvin Thomas Mark Wilshaw Kevin Wright Claim 2 Mark McCue Claim 3 Adrian Kulesza Agnieszka Wasik Andrea Billinge Andrew Green Angela Trigg Bartosz Pietkiewicz Callen Lumsdale Cezak Dominik Christopher Shenton Craig Wasley Cyril Roberts Daniel Farrell Diane Abbotts Gary Breeze Ian Deaville Jack Copeland Jenny Speakman[42]Julie Robinson Case Nos: 1302690/2023, 1302822/2023, 1301829/2023 and others 9 Kerris Simpson Lindsay Christopher Cotton Lisa Hughes Michelle Allen Natalia Liskowicz Ryan Abbotts Shemelis Assafa Stephen Chadwick Stephen Cole Stuart Shickell Teresa Towey Tim Colclough Tracey Keenan Tracy Cooper Tracy Bryan Yonatan Kahsai TOM GREGORY