Mr M Griffiths v Thomas Cook Airlines Ltd (in Compulsory Liquidation) and The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (England and Wales : Protective Award) [2021] UKET 2400751/2020 (23 August 2021)

The tribunal found that Thomas Cook Airlines Ltd failed to comply with its statutory duty to consult employees prior to redundancy and granted a protective award.

Source-derived case information.

Citation: [2021] UKET 2400751/2020
Parties: Claimant: Mr M Griffiths; Respondent: Thomas Cook Airlines Ltd (in Compulsory Liquidation); Respondent: The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy
Jurisdiction: United Kingdom
Judgment Date: 23 August 2021
Procedural Posture: Employment Tribunal / Judgment on Protective Award
Outcome: Protective award granted
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 M Griffiths

Claimant

Thomas Cook Airlines Ltd (in Compulsory Liquidation)

Respondent

The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Tribunal / Judgment on Protective Award

Legal Issues

1 Whether the respondent failed to consult employees as required under section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
2 Whether a protective award should be made

Ratio Decidendi

The tribunal found that Thomas Cook Airlines Ltd failed to comply with its statutory duty to consult employees prior to redundancy and granted a protective award.

Court Disposition

Protective award granted

Orders

The respondent is ordered to pay a protective award to affected employees for the maximum period permitted by law.

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.