Miss C Gregory v Qube Qualifications and Development Ltd (in Creditors Voluntary Liquidation) and Secretary of State for Business and Trade (England and Wales : Protective Award) [2025] UKET 3305198/2023 (13 June 2025)

The tribunal found that the respondent failed to comply with statutory consultation requirements prior to redundancy, entitling the claimant to a protective award.

Source-derived case information.

Citation: [2025] UKET 3305198/2023
Parties: Claimant: Miss C Gregory; Respondent: Qube Qualifications and Development Ltd (in Creditors Voluntary Liquidation); Respondent: Secretary of State for Business and Trade
Jurisdiction: United Kingdom
Judgment Date: 13 June 2025
Procedural Posture: Employment Tribunal / Judgment on Protective Award
Outcome: Protective award granted
Legal Topics: Protective Award, Collective Redundancy, Insolvency

Employment Law Protective Award Collective Redundancy Insolvency

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1

Parties

Miss C Gregory

Claimant

Qube Qualifications and Development Ltd (in Creditors Voluntary Liquidation)

Respondent

Secretary of State for Business and Trade

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Tribunal / Judgment on Protective Award

Legal Issues

1 Whether the respondent failed to consult employees as required under collective redundancy provisions
2 Whether the claimant is entitled to a protective award

Ratio Decidendi

The tribunal found that the respondent failed to comply with statutory consultation requirements prior to redundancy, entitling the claimant to a protective award.

Court Disposition

Protective award granted

Orders

The respondent is ordered to pay a protective award to the claimant for failure to consult under collective redundancy provisions.

About this LexChat collection

Publisher and coverage

LexChat is published by Esheria. Coverage reflects the case law currently mapped from identified source collections; it may be incomplete, delayed, or later corrected. The official source controls where it differs from this research page.

AI and research method

Source-derived facts are shown separately from AI-generated material. If an AI summary is available, it is explicitly labelled and remains a non-authoritative research aid.

Corrections and reporting

Report a source mismatch, factual issue, personal-data concern, or licensing question to support@esheria.co.ke. Include this page's URL and the supporting official source so the record can be reviewed, corrected, restricted, or withdrawn.

Legal-information disclaimer

LexChat provides legal information and research tools, not legal advice. Verify currency, status, citations, and jurisdiction with authoritative sources and a qualified professional where appropriate.