Adam Carpets Ltd (in administration) and Secretary of State for Business and Trade

Case Summary

The claims of 50 employees for a protective award under section 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 succeed, as the employer failed to consult over the proposed redundancies.

The employer failed to consult with the 50 employees over the proposed redundancies as required by section 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, therefore the claimants are entitled to a protective award covering 90 days' remuneration.

Use these claim-type pages to compare this decision with other published tribunal cases, outcome patterns, and visible award data.

• •Failure by employer to comply with requirements of section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 regarding collective redundancy consultation

& ors 1 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimants:Mr. Christopher Adam & 49 others (see attached schedule) Respondents:Adam Carpets Limited (in administration) (1) Secretary of State for Business & Trade (2) On papersOn: 27 February 2026 Before:Employment Judge Wedderspoon JUDGEMENT 1. The complaints of all named 50 employees (see attached schedule) under section 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (“the Act”) of a failure by the first respondent to comply with the requirements of section 188 of the 1992 Act, succeeds. 2. The Tribunal orders the first respondent by way of protective award under section 189 (3) of the Act pay to all 50 named employees at the first respondent’s site who were dismissed for redundancy on 20 March 2025, renumeration for the period of 90 days beginning on 20 March 2025. 3. The Recoupment Regulations apply. REASONS 1. By claim form dated 17 June 2025, 50 claimants (lead claimant, Christopher Adam) brought a complaint for a protective award pursuant to section 189 of the TULRC Act 1992. 2. The second respondent, the Secretary of State for Business & Trade was added to the proceedings as an interested party only. 3. On 16 July 2025 the second respondent submitted an ET3 / written submissions. 4. By 27 August 2025 no response was received from the first respondent. 5. By letter dated 11 September 2025 Lucy Abbott (for Yoph Young) of Leonard Curtis acting as administrators of the first respondent wrote to the Tribunal stating that all employees were made redundant on the same day (namely 20 March 2025) at one establishment. & ors 2 There was no consultation with trade unions or employee representatives. On 20 March 2025 the first respondent was placed into administration and the company ceased to trade. The Law 6. The duty on employers to consult about collective redundancies is set out in section 188 (1) of the 1992 Act as follows : “Where an employer is proposing to dismiss as redundant 20 or more employees at one…