Mr C Adam and others v Adam Carpets Ltd (in administration) and Secretary of State for Business and Trade: 1303187/2025 and others

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS

Case No 1303187/2025

Between

Mr. Christopher Adam & 49 others (see attached schedule)Claimant

Adam Carpets Limited (in administration) (1)Respondent

Before

Employment Judge Wedderspoon

Date 27 February 2026

REASONS

[1]By claim form dated 17 June 2025, 50 claimants (lead claimant, Christopher Adam) brought a complaint for a protective award pursuant to section 189 of the TULRC Act 1992.

[2]The second respondent, the Secretary of State for Business & Trade was added to the proceedings as an interested party only.

[3]On 16 July 2025 the second respondent submitted an ET3 / written submissions.

[4]By 27 August 2025 no response was received from the first respondent.

[5]By letter dated 11 September 2025 Lucy Abbott (for Yoph Young) of Leonard Curtis acting as administrators of the first respondent wrote to the Tribunal stating that all employees were made redundant on the same day (namely 20 March 2025) at one establishment. There was no consultation with trade unions or employee representatives. On 20 March 2025 the first respondent was placed into administration and the company ceased to trade.

The Law

[6]The duty on employers to consult about collective redundancies is set out in section 188 (1) of the 1992 Act as follows : “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.”

[7]The extended definition of redundancy in section 195 (1) of the 1992 Act is wider than the definition under section 139 of the Employment Right Act 1996 namely “dismissal for a reason not related to the individual concerned or for a number of reasons all of which are not so related.”

[8]Pursuant to section 188 (1A) of the Act consultation must begin in “good time” which is at least 30 days before the first of the dismissals takes effect. Further consultation must be meaningful pursuant to section 188 (2) of the Act in that it seeks to avoid dismissals, reduces the number of employees to be dismissed and seeks to mitigate the consequences of the dismissals.

[9]Pursuant to section 189 (6) of the Act where an employer says that there are special circumstances, it is for the employer to show there were such circumstances and that it took all reasonably practicable steps towards compliance.

[10]In the case of Susie Radin v GMB

(2004) IRLR 400

the Court of Appeal stated that when assessing the protective award the Tribunal has a wide discretion. The focus is on the employer’s default but the purpose of the award is punitive not compensatory. The starting point is the 90 day maximum which should be reduced only if there are mitigating circumstances . A 90 day award may be appropriate even if the minimum consultation period is only 30 days.

Conclusions

[11]The Tribunal concludes, on the balance of probabilities, that the duty to consult arose because the first respondent employer was proposing to dismiss as redundant 20 or more employees at one establishment within a period of 90 days or less.

[12]The letter dated 11 September 2025 from Lucy Abbott (for Yoph Young) of Leonard Curtis shows that all employees (namely all 49 employees) were made redundant on the same day (namely 20 March 2025) at one establishment.

[13]Furthermore dismissal pursuant to section 195 (1) is satisfied here because the first respondent’s business ceased to trade so that the dismissals of the employees were for a reason not related to the individuals concerned of or for a number of reasons all of which are not so related.

[14]There was no consultation with trade unions or employee representatives. On 20 March 2025 the first respondent was placed into administration and the company ceased to trade.

[15]Collective redundancy consultation did not take place in good time pursuant to section 188 (1A) of the 1992 Act.

[16]From the letter dated 11 September 2025 all 50 employee claimants were made redundant on 20 March 2025 and there was no consultation with either trade unions or personal representatives.

[17]In the circumstances there was no meaningful consultation pursuant to section 188 (2) of the Act in that there was no consultation to avoid dismissals, reduce the number of employees to be dismissed or attempts to mitigate the consequences of the dismissals.

[18]In all the circumstances the Tribunal determines that the first respondent has acted in breach of section 188 of TULRC 1992 in failing to engage in collective consultation with all 50 employees.

[19]The Tribunal determines that there should be a 90 day protective award for each of the 50 employees. The information available to the Tribunal from the administrator is that there was no consultation with trade unions or employee representatives and on 20 March 2025 the first respondent was placed into administration and the company ceased to trade. Further, no special circumstances defence pursuant to section 189 (6) of the Act, has been advanced here. Approved by Employment Judge Wedderspoon Date: 27 February 2026 Case No. Year Title First name Last name 1303187 2025 Mr Christopher Adam 1303189 2025 Mr Richard Austin 1303190 2025 Mr Christopher Borrett 1303191 2025 Mr Nick Bow 1303192 2025 Mrs Trisha Bowers 1303193 2025 Mr Paul Bradley 1303194 2025 Mr Richard Bulmer 1303195 2025 Mrs Kelly Butler 1303196 2025 Mr Peter Chell 1303197 2025 Mr Colin Childe 1303198 2025 Mr Simon Collins 1303199 2025 Mrs Sharon Corfield 1303200 2025 Mr Tim Corfield 1303201 2025 Mr David Danby 1303202 2025 Mr Graham Davis 1303203 2025 Mrs Clare Deakin 1303204 2025 Mr Andrew Ellis 1303205 2025 Mr Kevin Giddins 1303206 2025 Mr Kieran Goodman 1303207 2025 Mr Andrew Guest 1303208 2025 Mr Richard Harris 1303209 2025 Mrs Beverley Hebron 1303210 2025 Mr Reuben Hill 1303211 2025 Mrs Elizabeth Hughes 1303212 2025 Mr Mark Kimberley 1303213 2025 Mr Liam Kurkus 1303214 2025 Mr Nicholas Lippitt 1303215 2025 Miss Lesley Martin 1303216 2025 Mr Phillip Murray 1303217 2025 Mr Paul Pearce 1303218 2025 Mr Gary Poulton 1303219 2025 Mr Anthony Quinn 1303220 2025 Mrs Colleen Rushgrove 1303221 2025 Mr John Salacinski 1303222 2025 Mr Robert Seymour 1303223 2025 Mr Charles Smith 1303224 2025 Mrs Tracy Smith-Dyke 1303225 2025 Miss Rachel Tarnowski 1303226 2025 Mrs Janet Taylor 1303227 2025 Miss Linda Taylor 1303228 2025 Miss Rebecca Taylor 1303229 2025 Mrs Tracy Ward 1303230 2025 Mr Michael Paul Watters 1303231 2025 Mr Nigel Wells 1303232 2025 Mr Andrew Williams 1303233 2025 Mrs Jill Williams 1303234 2025 Mrs Emma Willis 1303235 2025 Mr James Wilson 1303236 2025 Miss Anna Wojciechowska Case No. Year Title First name Last name 1303237 2025 Mr Paul Zinzan