Miss M Allum and Others v Waterline Ltd (In Administration) and Secretary of State for Business & Trade: 3307603/2025 and Others

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Case No 3307603/2025, 3307657/2025
Miss M Allum & Others (see attached schedule)Claimant1. Waterline Limited (In Administration) 2. Secretary of State for Business & TradeRespondent
Date 29 June 2026

JUDGMENT

(1) The first respondent has failed to comply with a requirement of section 188 of the Trade Union & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The claim for a protective award succeeds.(2) The Tribunal makes a protective award in respect of the claimants who worked at the first respondent’s establishment at Crown House, North Crawley Road, Interchange Park, Newport Pagnell, MK16 9TG and who were dismissed as redundant on or after 9 October 2025 that the employer pay remuneration for the protected period which begins on 9 October 2025 and is for a period of 90 days. The Recoupment Regulations apply.

REASONS

[1]The claimants were employed at the same establishment at Crown House, North Crawley Road, Interchange Park, Newport Pagnell, MK16 9TG (“the establishment”) and were made redundant on or after 9 October 2025.[2]There was no recognised trade union or elected employee representatives at the establishment. 3. 20 or more employees at the establishment were made redundant or placed at risk of redundancy, on or within 90 days of 9 October 2025.[4]The claimants were dismissed during this period without any consultation having taken place.[5]The last of the dismissals occurred on 9 October 2025, so all the claims have been presented within the time limit contained in section 189(5)(b) of the Trade Union & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.[6]The first respondent, which is in administration, has not filed a response to the claim but has consented to it proceeding. The second respondent has been copied into the proceedings as statutory guarantor.[7]There is no reason to depart from the principle that protective awards are punitive and should be for the maximum period unless there are circumstances making it just not to do so. Approved by: Regional Employment Judge Foxwell Date 29 June 2026[1]The claimants were employed at the same establishment at Crown House, North Crawley Road, Interchange Park, Newport Pagnell, MK16 9TG (“the establishment”) and were made redundant on or after 9 October 2025.[2]There was no recognised trade union or elected employee representatives at the establishment. 3. 20 or more employees at the establishment were made redundant or placed at risk of redundancy, on or within 90 days of 9 October 2025.[4]The claimants were dismissed during this period without any consultation having taken place.[5]The last of the dismissals occurred on 9 October 2025, so all the claims have been presented within the time limit contained in section 189(5)(b) of the Trade Union & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.[6]The first respondent, which is in administration, has not filed a response to the claim but has consented to it proceeding. The second respondent has been copied into the proceedings as statutory guarantor.[7]There is no reason to depart from the principle that protective awards are punitive and should be for the maximum period unless there are circumstances making it just not to do so. Approved by: