Claimant v Surgo Construction Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The unfair dismissal claim brought by Mr Laidler (3rd claimant) was withdrawn by the claimant and subsequently dismissed by the tribunal.
The claims for protective awards under section 188 TULR(C)A 1992 brought by Mr Laidler, Mr C Kinghorn and Mr R Kinghorn were found to be not well founded and were dismissed by the tribunal.
The claims brought by Mr Inkster (1st claimant), Mr Burridge (2nd claimant) and Mr Rutherford (4th claimant) were dismissed under Rule 47 for non-attendance at the hearing, indicating non-pursuit of their claims.
Facts
Six claimants brought claims against Surgo Construction Limited (In Administration) including claims for unfair dismissal and protective awards for failure to consult under section 188 TULR(C)A 1992. Three claimants (Inkster, Burridge and Rutherford) failed to attend the hearing. Three claimants (Laidler, C Kinghorn and R Kinghorn) were represented by lay representative Colin Kinghorn. The respondent company was in administration and did not attend.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed the claims of the three non-attending claimants under Rule 47 for non-pursuit. Mr Laidler's unfair dismissal claim was dismissed upon withdrawal. The protective award claims brought by Laidler and the two Kinghorn claimants were found to be not well founded and were dismissed.
Practical note
In insolvency cases involving multiple claimants, non-attendance results in dismissal under Rule 47, and protective award claims under TULR(C)A s.188 require proper factual and legal foundation to succeed even against an insolvent respondent.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2500734/2024
- Decision date
- 2 June 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- construction
- Represented
- No
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No
- Rep type
- lay rep