Mr D Burton and others v DHR Global Ltd and others 2202282/2015 and others
JUDGMENT
[1]The judgment sent to the parties on 29 November 2016 have been varied, following reconsideration, as follows:1.1 In paragraph 2, by deleting all words after the first sentence and substituting these words: “for which a declaration is made, but no award”.1.2 In paragraph 3, by deleting all words after “consult about redundancy”, and substituting these words: “for which a 90 day protective award is made to each, starting 30 June 2016”.1.3 In paragraphs 5,7,9,11,13, stating the amount of the award to each group 1 claimant, each figure must be divided by 91 and multiplied by 90.1.4 The awards made to the group 2 claimants in December judgments are also varied by a 90/91 reduction, so £35,000 is deleted in each case, and £34,615.38 is substituted.REASONS
[1]Detailed reasons for varying the judgment in this way are given in the Rule 72 Consideration of Application to Reconsider, signed on 1 March and sent to the parties, and to the Insolvency Service a san interested party on 27 March 2017 as a provisional view and inviting representations within 21 days.[2]Several claimants have replied signifying agreement. The respondents have not replied, neither has the Insolvency Service. Accordingly a protective award for 10.2 Judgment - rule 61 Case No: 2202282/2015 and others failing to consult about redundancy is substituted in each case for a protective award for failing to consult about a transfer.[3]The award for failing to consult about a transfer was 13 weeks’ pay, which is 91 days. The award for failing to consult about redundancy is 90 days. Accordingly the figure due to each claimant in groups 1 and 2 is to be divided by 91 and multiplied by 90.