GMB and others v Wade Ceramics Ltd (in administration) and Secretary of State for Business and Trade (England and Wales : Protective Award) [2024] UKET 1302690/2023 (28 August 2024)

The tribunal found that Wade Ceramics Ltd failed to comply with statutory consultation obligations and granted a protective award to the claimants.

Source-derived case information.

Citation: [2024] UKET 1302690/2023
Parties: Claimant: GMB and others; Respondent: Wade Ceramics Ltd (in administration); Respondent: Secretary of State for Business and Trade
Jurisdiction: United Kingdom
Judgment Date: 28 August 2024
Procedural Posture: Employment Tribunal / Judgment
Outcome: Protective award granted in favour of the claimants.
Legal Topics: Protective Award, Collective Redundancy, Consultation Obligations

Employment Law Protective Award Collective Redundancy Consultation Obligations

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1

Parties

GMB and others

Claimant

Wade Ceramics Ltd (in administration)

Respondent

Secretary of State for Business and Trade

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Tribunal / Judgment

Legal Issues

1 Whether the respondent failed to consult with employee representatives as required before making redundancies
2 Whether a protective award should be granted to the claimants

Ratio Decidendi

The tribunal found that Wade Ceramics Ltd failed to comply with statutory consultation obligations and granted a protective award to the claimants.

Court Disposition

Protective award granted in favour of the claimants.

Orders

Respondent to pay protective award to claimants
Secretary of State for Business and Trade to pay in accordance with statutory obligations if respondent unable to pay

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.