Mr S Dixon and Mr AS Armstrong v Testerworld Ltd (in administration) and Secretary of State for Business and Trade (England and Wales : Protective Award) [2023] UKET 2501499/2022 (27 July 2023)

The respondents failed to consult employees prior to collective redundancies, breaching statutory requirements and entitling claimants to a protective award.

Source-derived case information.

Citation: [2023] UKET 2501499/2022
Parties: Claimant: Mr S Dixon; Claimant: Mr AS Armstrong; Respondent: Testerworld Ltd (in administration); Respondent: Secretary of State for Business and Trade
Jurisdiction: United Kingdom
Judgment Date: 27 July 2023
Procedural Posture: Employment Tribunal / Final Judgment
Outcome: claim upheld
Legal Topics: Protective Award, Collective Redundancy, Failure to Consult

Employment Law Protective Award Collective Redundancy Failure to Consult

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

Mr S Dixon

Claimant

Mr AS Armstrong

Claimant

Testerworld Ltd (in administration)

Respondent

Secretary of State for Business and Trade

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Tribunal / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

1 Whether the respondents failed to consult employees prior to collective redundancies
2 Whether claimants are entitled to a protective award

Ratio Decidendi

The respondents failed to consult employees prior to collective redundancies, breaching statutory requirements and entitling claimants to a protective award.

Court Disposition

claim upheld

Orders

Protective award granted to claimants for failure to consult prior to collective redundancies

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.