Miss I Vozzi Gudino and others v Flying Jamon Ltd (In Administration): 2301229/2020 and others

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Case No 2301229/2020
Miss I Vozzi Gudino and othersClaimantFlying Jamon Ltd (In Administration)Respondent
Employment Judge MclarenMs. S Crawshay-Williams (instructed by Counsel) for claimantMs. G Rezai (instructed by Counsel) for respondentDate 10 June 2022

JUDGMENT

BY CONSENT Upon the parties having reached settlement of the claims, the Tribunal records its judgment by consent of the parties that:[1]The administrators of the Respondent consent to the claims proceeding during the period of administration, and that the claims can proceed.[2]The claims have been validly submitted and accepted by the Tribunal in accordance with Rule 8 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013.[3]The Respondent's application for the addition or substitution of Houst Holdings Limited as a respondent is rejected.[4]Graham Bushby and Mark Holborow were appointed as joint administrators of the Respondent on 28 February 2020. Following the appointment of the administrators the Claimants' employment was subsequently terminated by reason of redundancy on 28 February 2020.[5]The Respondent did not inform and consult with the Claimants in advance of the termination of employment in accordance with section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The Claimants' claim for a protective award pursuant to section 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 is well founded.[6]The Respondent is liable to pay protective awards equivalent to 90 days' pay to the Claimants detailed in Schedule 1.[7]Save for the protective awards detailed in (6), all any other claims presented are dismissed.[8]There shall be no award of costs pursuant to Rules 74 to 84 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013. Employment Judge Mclaren Date 23rd May 2022 Schedule one Ms Akshata Ajmera Ms Maria Ambrozie Ms Priscila Anhuci Mr Harley Baptiste Ms Justina Balciuniene Mr Ezequiel Bargazzi Mr Vasil Birindzhiev Mr Daniel Cardona Echeverri Miss Sarah Cosyn Miss Valentine Cox Mr Carlos de la Cerda Suarez Miss Carmen De Marco Mr Thomas De Toledo Mrs Maria Dracea Ms Tsvetlanka Drankova Mr Deniel Dzadik Mr Alvaro Ferro Rodriguez Mr Davide Foti Mr Filippo Funis Ms Martina Furian Mrs Malwina Gasior Miss Gabriella Gentilcore Ms Marine Greco Mr Catalin Grecu Miss Adriana Guiu Mr Alexander Hayton Mr Jarrad Hicks Mr Naushad Hossain Mr Stefan Ionut Ilie Mrs Cristina Iliuta Mr Gabor Illes Ms Gergana Ivanova Miss Galya Kamenova Mr Dominic Kistnah-jeffries Mr Alexandros Lamprou Ms Milda Leonaviciute Miss Lyudmila Lyubenova Mr Conor Malone Ms Elena Margarint Ms Hannah Mansour Mr Joseba Matanza Medina Ms Dafni Mitropoulou Mrs Mariana Mladenova Miss Regina Nogueira Miss Nadia Osman Miss Ezgi Ozer Ms Estefania Palazzo Wilson Ms Egle Paskeviciute Miss Nikki Phillips Mr Oriol Pueyo Munoz Mr Simrat Randhawa Miss Sophie Roberts Miss Ioanna Rontou Mrs Georgiana Rusu Ms Ana Sanchez Zampa Miss Pauline Sebaoun Miss Tarini Sharda Mr Shiroshan Sivalingam Mrs Vasilica Stanciu Miss Nathalie Stocker Miss Bridget Sweeney Miss Federica Talato Mr Nicholas Taylor Miss Daniela Troiano Ms Fani Tsantsaraki Miss Jocosa Tse Mrs Oona Tsontry Miss Anca Tutuianu Mr Vlad Tutunea Ms Raluca Vasalas Miss Irene Vozzi Gudino Miss Ki-mun Yuen Miss Liza Zuber CERTIFICATE OF CORRECTION Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 Under the provisions of Rule 69, the Judgment by consent sent to the parties on 25th May 2022, is corrected as set out in block type at paragraphs 6: The Respondent is liable to pay protective awards equivalent to 90 days pay to the Claimants detailed in schedule 1. The Respondent is therefore ordered to pay renumeration for the protected period of 90 days commencing on 28th February 2020. Employment Judge McLaren Date 10th June 2022 Important note to parties: Any dates for the filing of appeals or reviews are not changed by this certificate of correction and corrected judgment. These time limits still run from the date of the original judgment, or original judgment with reasons, when appealing.