J Nicholson v SVL Healthcare Services Ltd (In Administration): 2312508/2024 and Others

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS

Case No 2312508/2024

Between

Joanna NicholsonClaimant

SVL Healthcare Services Ltd (in administration)Respondent

Before

Judge M Aspinall

Date 15 January 2026

REASONS

[6]This is a group claim for a protective award brought under sections 188 and 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (“the Act”).

[7]The Respondent, SVL Healthcare Services Ltd, is in administration. No ET3 Response has been presented. The Joint Administrators, Kroll Advisory Ltd, have confirmed in correspondence that the claim is not defended and that they consent to judgment being entered.

[8]Notwithstanding the absence of a defence and the Respondent’s consent, the Tribunal must be independently satisfied that the statutory conditions for the making of a protective award are met. Having reviewed the documents and heard the submissions of Mr Mills on behalf of the Claimants, I am so satisfied.

[9]The issues for determination were:(a) Whether the duty to consult under section 188 of the Act arose;

(b) Whether the Respondent failed to comply with that duty;

(d) The appropriate length of the protected period; and

(e) Whether the Tribunal should quantify the award.

[10]I make the following findings of fact based on the unchallenged documentary evidence in the bundle and the witness statements of Ms Kaylie Law and Mr Lee Barham.

[11]The Respondent employed approximately 330 employees in the provision of nonemergency patient transport services.

[12]On 27 August 2024, 14 management employees were dismissed by reason of redundancy. On 30 August 2024, following the appointment of the administrators, a further 316 employees were dismissed.

[13]Accordingly, I find that more than 20 employees were dismissed within a period of 90 days.

[14]The evidence establishes that while many employees were mobile or “field-based”, working across various NHS sites, they were assigned to, and managed from, a single central hub. I am satisfied that the relevant employees were assigned to one establishment, namely the Respondent’s head office at Stone Castle, Stone Castle Drive, Greenhithe.

[15]There was no recognised trade union at the establishment. There was no existing body of employee representatives.

[16]It is undisputed that no steps were taken to arrange the election of employee representatives and that no collective consultation took place prior to the dismissals.

[17]Section 188 of the Act imposes a duty on an employer to consult appropriate representatives where it proposes to dismiss 20 or more employees at one establishment within a period of 90 days or less.

[18]Section 189 provides that affected employees may present a complaint to the Tribunal. Where the complaint is well-founded, the Tribunal must make a declaration to that effect and must make a protective award.

[19]The maximum protected period is 90 days. The decision in Susie Radin Ltd v GMB

[2004] IRLR 400

establishes that, in cases of a complete failure to consult, the appropriate starting point is the maximum period.

[20]I am satisfied that the duty to consult under section 188 arose in this case. The Respondent wholly failed to comply with that duty. The complaint is well-founded.

[21]Pursuant to section 189(2) of the Act, I make a declaration that the Respondent failed to comply with the requirements of section 188.

[22]This is a case of complete failure to consult. No mitigating factors or special circumstances have been advanced by the Respondent or the Administrators. I therefore consider it just and correct to make a protective award for the maximum period permitted.

[23]I determine that the protected period is 90 days.

[24]The protected period shall commence on 27 August 2024, being the date of the first dismissals.

[25]Mr Lewis confirmed on behalf of the Claimants that the Tribunal is not asked to quantify the monetary value of the protective award. I was informed that the Respondent’s Administrators have already provided the Redundancy Payments Service with the relevant pay information for each claimant.

[26]In those circumstances, the Tribunal makes no quantification of the monetary value of the protective award. The calculation and payment of the sums due are matters to be addressed in accordance with the statutory guarantee arrangements and between the relevant parties.

[27]For the avoidance of doubt, the Secretary of State and the Redundancy Payments Service do not stand in the shoes of the Respondent. Any involvement of the Secretary of State arises solely in the capacity of statutory guarantor of payment pursuant to Part XII of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The Respondent remains the employer against whom the protective award is made. APPROVED Judge M Aspinall (sitting as an