Ms L Hutchison and others v Tayprint Ltd (in Liquidation) and Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy: 4107788/2022 and others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 08 August 2023 |
| Date | 08 August 2023 |
| Citation | 4107788/2022 and others |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Published date | 13 April 2023 |
| Subject Matter | Protective Award |
E.T. Z4 (WR)
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND)
5
Case No: 4107788/2022 and others (see Schedule)
Final Hearing held in Dundee on 17 March 2023
10
Employment Judge A Kemp
Ms Lorna Hutchison and 19 others Claimants
Represented by:
15
Mr W Bolling,
Director
Tayprint Ltd (in liquidation) First respondent
20
No appearance or
representation
Secretary of State for Business, Energy Second respondent
25
& Industrial Strategy Written submissions
only from
Ms Sherron Dobson,
RPS Tribunal Officer
30
JUDGMENT OF THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL
The Tribunal finds that the Claims are within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.
The Claims are sisted to allow the claimants to seek the consent of the
court for the present proceedings under section 130(2) of the Insolvency
35
Act 1986.
REASONS
Introduction
4107788/2022 and others Page 2
1. This was a Final Hearing held in person. The claims are made by a total
of 20 claimants for a protective award under the Trade Union and Labour
Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The first respondent was the employer
of the claimants, and has gone into liquidation. It did not appear. Its Joint
Liquidator has written to consent to the awards sought. The second
5
respondent appears for its interest, and provided written submissions. The
second respondent did not appear at the Final Hearing.
Evidence
2. The claimants had prepared a set of documents that included details of
each of them, their start dates with the first respondent, date of birth, and
10
pay details. Evidence was given orally by Mr William Bolling, who also
appeared to represent the claimants, and Ms Lorna Hutchison the first
claimant. In advance of the Final Hearing I requested the clerk to send a
message to the claimants’ representative raising a concern over the terms
of section 130(2) of the Insolvency Act 1986. At the commencement of the
15
Final Hearing itself I raised a separate matter, which concerned the date
on which Early Conciliation had started, and the statutory provisions as to
time-bar.
3. Less than four hours after the hearing concluded Mr Bolling sent an email
with additional documents, explaining the context in which he did so. He
20
sought to add those to the documents that had earlier been produced and
spoken to in evidence. I considered that it was in accordance with the
overriding objective to permit him to do so as the point on time-bar was
not one of which he had had advance notice, and the documents he
produced were relevant to that.
25
Issues
4. The issues were identified at the start of the hearing and are:
(i) Does the Tribunal have jurisdiction?
(ii) Is the consent of the court required for these proceedings under
section 130(2) of the Insolvency Act 1986?
30
(iii) Are the claimants entitled to a protective award?
(iv) If so, to what remedy are the claimants entitled?
To continue reading
Request your trial