C Neal and Others v Tenet Group Ltd (In Administration) and The Secretary of State for Business and Trade: 2305337/2024 and Others

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS

Case No 2305337/2024, 2305352/2024, 2305338/2024, 2305339/2024, 2305340/2024, 2305341/2024, 2305342/2024, 2305343/2024, 2305344/2024, 2305345/2024, 2305346/2024, 2305347/2024, 2305348/2024, 2305349/2024, 2305350/2024, 2305351/2024

Between

(1) Christopher Neal (2305337/2024 & 2305338/2024) (2) Joanne Oliver (2305339/2024) (3) Andrew Chapman (2305340/2024) (4) Linda Cameron (2305341/2024) (5) Allison Alexander (2305342/2024) (6) Tegan Chapman (2305343/2024) (7) Emily Carr (2305344/2024) (8) Megan Farnall (2305345/2024) (9) Nikki Mandviwala (2305346/2024) (10) Naomi King (2305347/2024) (11) Samuel Miller (2305348/2024) (12) Massum Ali (2305349/2024) (13) Syed Abbas (2305350/2024)Claimant

Tenet Group Ltd (In Administration) and The Secretary of State for Business and TradeRespondent

Before

Employment Judge E Fowell

Date 10 November 2025

JUDGMENT

[1]Each claimant has brought a complaint under section 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 regarding a failure by the first respondent to comply with the requirements of section 188 of the 1992 Act.

[2]In each case they were summarily dismissed on grounds of redundancy on 5 June 2024 without any consultation.

[3]The judgment of the Tribunal is that each complaint succeeds and that each claimant is entitled to a protective award.

[4]In the absence of any consultation, the Tribunal orders the first respondent by way of a protective award to pay each claimant remuneration for the period of 90 days beginning on 6 June 2024.

[5]Each award is also increased by 25% to reflect the first respondent’s failure to comply with the ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures.

[6]The Employment Protection (Recoupment of Benefits) Regulations 1996 apply.

REASONS

[1]By way of background, the claimants worked for the first respondent (the company) until 5 June 2024 when they were all summarily dismissed and the company went into administration.

[2]Each claimant has since made claims to the Redundancy Payment Service for notice pay, arrears of pay and other items and the only matter which remains outstanding is a protective award for the company’s failure to comply with the duty to consult about collective redundancies.

[3]The essential facts were established at the preliminary hearing on 15 September 2025 before Employment Judge Ramsden. No one attended that hearing on behalf of respondents. The only party present was Mr Neal, on behalf of himself and the other claimants. He explained that: Case Number 2305337/2024 to 2305352/2024 Page 3 of 6(a) The administrators were appointed on 5 June 2024.

(b) A total of ninety five employees were dismissed that day, each without notice and without any consultation.

(d) Mr Neal reported in to a manager who was also a home-based employee.

(e) Their belief was that the company employed some people at offices in Lichfield and in Leeds, and that some office-based employees were among those dismissed.

(f) The company did not inform them about any proposal to dismiss them ahead of the appointment of the administrators;

(g) There was no recognised trade union and no employee representatives were elected for the purposes of consultation.

[4]Those facts are not disputed. Indeed, the administrators, having given consent for the case to continue, provided a response (ET3) stating that they did not contest the claim. That form also recorded that 95 the employees were indeed made redundant. Permission by the Administrator

[5]The letter giving permission for the case to proceed is dated 4 October 2024, and stated: “The Joint Administrators hereby give consent for the claim to be heard at any forthcoming Tribunal hearing regarding a Protective Award Claim for Mr Chris Neal.”

[6]That left an issue as to whether permission had been granted for the claims by all 15 claimants to be heard or just Mr Neal. This was highlighted at the preliminary hearing, when the administrators were directed to write to the tribunal to make their position clear, but it does not appear that they have done so.

[7]Having considered the point I prefer the view that the permission granted is sufficient to cover the claim in its entirety. Firstly, it is a single claim form presented on behalf of Mr Neil and the 14 additional claimants, rather than 15 individual claim forms which have been consolidated. Secondly, the administrators have filed a response to that claim as a whole, accepting that Case Number 2305337/2024 to 2305352/2024 Page 4 of 6 the claim is valid. There is no indication on that form that they are only responding to the lead claim. Thirdly, there is no reason why the administrators should take a different view in Mr Neil’s case from the others. Finally, they have not written, despite the Tribunal’s direction, to challenge that view. In those circumstances I conclude that the language used in the letter is simply imprecise but the meaning is clear in the overall context of the case, that there is no objection to it proceeding.

[8]That view is also supported by the interim report from the administrators which is available at Companies House. According to this, it is expected that ordinary preferential creditors such as employees are expected to recover 100 pence in the pound. So it is unlikely that any further payment will be needed from public funds. The estimate of these the employee claims is £121,950, which is considerably more than the value of any protective award to Mr Neal alone. The Secretary of State

[9]The Secretary of State has been treated as a respondent by virtue of rule 96 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure. Hence, she was notified of the claim at the outset and has provided a written response in her position as statutory guarantor, setting out the legal tests to be met. Otherwise, she does not play any active role in these proceedings. Applicable Law and Conclusions

[10]Section 188(1) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (the 1992 Act) imposes on employers the requirement to consult “appropriate representatives” of their workforce about proposed larger-scale redundancies. It provides that: “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.”

[11]The duty only arises where an employer is proposing to dismiss as redundant 20 or more employees at one establishment within a period of 90 days or less.

[12]Since the claim has been accepted by the administrators, no issue arises over the size of the group or whether they were all employed at one establishment. Hence a protective award is due for each claimant. Case Number 2305337/2024 to 2305352/2024 Page 5 of 6 The Protective Award

[13]The protective award is defined in section 189(3). The protected period begins with the date on which the first of the relevant dismissals takes effect, or the date of the award, if earlier. It 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, up to 90 days.

[14]The Court of Appeal provided guidance in the well-known case of Susie Radin v GMB

[2004] IRLR 400

. Firstly, the purpose of the award is punitive, not compensatory. The Tribunal has a wide discretion, but the focus is on the employer’s default. The default may vary from complete failure to the merely technical. The starting point is the 90-day maximum, which should be reduced only if there are mitigating circumstances.

[15]Given that there was no consultation here, and no mitigation has been advanced, each claimant is entitled to the 90-day maximum. That protected period began on 6 June 2024. ACAS Code of Practice

[16]One final point raised at the preliminary hearing was whether any uplift may be applied to the awards to a failure to comply with the ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures. That power applies to claims brought under any of the jurisdictions listed in Schedule A2 to the 1992 Act, and that Schedule does include section 189 of the 1992 Act (failure to follow consultation requirements). Accordingly, an uplift can be applied.

[17]Given the lack of any consultation, and in keeping with the maximum 90-day protective awards already made, the only appropriate figure to apply by way of uplift is the maximum of 25%. That is therefore applied in each case. Approved by