SVL Healthcare Services Ltd (In Administration)

Case Summary

This is a group claim for a protective award due to the respondent's failure to consult under section 188 before dismissing over 20 employees within 90 days.

The tribunal found that the respondent failed to comply with the statutory consultation requirement under section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 before dismissing over 20 employees within 90 days, and therefore made a protective award.

• •Failure to consult under section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992

Reference number 2312508-2024 and others EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS London South Employment Tribunal 15 January 2026 (video) Claimants: Joanna Nicholson Respondent: SVL Healthcare Services Ltd (in administration) Before: Judge M Aspinall (sitting alone as an Employment Judge) Appearances: Mr P Mills (Consultant) for the Claimants; assisted by Mr A Lewis No appearances by, or expected for, the Respondent Judgment 1. The complaint that the Respondent failed to comply with a requirement of section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 is well-founded. 2. The Tribunal makes a protective award in respect of the Claimants listed in the Schedule who were dismissed as redundant. 3. The Tribunal orders the Respondent to pay to those Claimants remuneration for the protected period of 90 days beginning on 27 August 2024. 4. The Employment Protection (Recoupment of Jobseeker’s Allowance and Income Support) Regulations 1996 apply to this award. 5. No quantification of the award is made by the Tribunal. REASONS 6. This is a group claim for a protective award brought under sections 188 and 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (“the Act”). 7. The Respondent, SVL Healthcare Services Ltd, is in administration. No ET3 Response has been presented. The Joint Administrators, Kroll Advisory Ltd, have confirmed in correspondence that the claim is not defended and that they consent to judgment being entered. 8. Notwithstanding the absence of a defence and the Respondent’s consent, the Tribunal must be independently satisfied that the statutory conditions for the making of a protective award are met. Having reviewed the documents and heard the submissions of Mr Mills on behalf of the Claimants, I am so satisfied. Reference number 2312508-2024 and others 9. The issues for determination were: (a) Whether the duty to consult un…