Protective award revoked after employer dissolved before judgment
A protective award of 90 days' pay for 23 employees was revoked because the employer company had been dissolved before the original judgment was issued, leaving the Secretary of State with no liability as guarantor.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #protective-award
- #redundancy
- #failure-to-consult
- #company-dissolution
- #nullity
Key facts
- The First Respondent was dissolved on 8 October 2021, before the original judgment was issued.
- The original judgment against a dissolved company was a nullity.
- The Second Respondent's liability as guarantor depends on a valid judgment against the employer.
- No valid judgment exists against the First Respondent, so the Second Respondent has no liability.
- The reconsideration judgment revoked the original protective award in its entirety.
Timeline
-
Employment start
Mr B Ruddy started employment as Assistant Manager at Las Iguanas, Braintree.
-
Area manager discusses elections
First Claimant was informed that elections for employee representatives would be held, but none took place.
-
Q&A document sent
A document was sent suggesting a consultation period of at least a month, but no consultation occurred.
-
Redundancy
All 23 employees at Las Iguanas, Braintree were made redundant with immediate effect.
-
Claim presented
Claimants presented claims for a protective award.
-
First Respondent dissolved
Casual Dining Services Limited was dissolved.
-
Original hearing
Employment Judge Russell heard the case and made a protective award of 90 days.
-
Original judgment sent
Judgment sent to parties, but against a dissolved company.
-
Reconsideration application
Second Respondent applied for reconsideration on grounds of dissolution and scope of award.
-
Reconsideration judgment
Acting Regional Employment Judge Russell revoked the original judgment as a nullity.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether a protective award made against a company that had been dissolved before the judgment was issued could stand, and whether the Secretary of State could be liable as a guarantor when the employer no longer existed.
The outcome
The tribunal revoked the original protective award of 90 days' pay for all 23 employees made redundant from Las Iguanas, Braintree, on 2 July 2020.
The key reason was that the First Respondent company, Casual Dining Services Limited, had been dissolved on 8 October 2021, before the original judgment was sent to the parties on 29 December 2021. A judgment against a dissolved company is a legal nullity. Since there was no valid judgment against the employer, the Second Respondent (Secretary of State) could not be liable as guarantor.
No compensation was awarded as the protective award was revoked in full.
Lessons & takeaways
- Check that the employer company still exists before pursuing a claim — a judgment against a dissolved company is void and cannot be enforced.
- If an employer goes into administration or is dissolved during proceedings, you may need to seek advice on alternative routes to compensation, such as claiming from the National Insurance Fund.
- The Secretary of State can only be liable as a guarantor if there is a valid judgment against the employer — if the employer no longer exists, the guarantee falls away.
- Act promptly if you become aware that the employer is being wound up — you may need to apply to restore the company to the register before judgment can be validly issued.
This case shows how a procedural technicality can unravel an otherwise strong claim for a protective award. The employees of Las Iguanas in Braintree were made redundant with no consultation at all — a clear breach of the collective consultation rules. The tribunal had originally awarded 90 days' pay for all 23 staff. But because the employer company was dissolved before the judgment was formally issued, the entire award was a legal nullity.
What went wrong
The employer, Casual Dining Services Limited, was dissolved on 8 October 2021. The original hearing took place on 18 October 2021, but the judgment was not sent to the parties until 29 December 2021 — after the company had ceased to exist. A judgment against a dissolved company has no legal effect. The Secretary of State, who would normally step in as guarantor when an employer cannot pay, could not be held liable because there was no valid judgment against the employer.
The tribunal's reconsideration judgment revoked the original award entirely. The employees were left with no protective award and no route to compensation through the Secretary of State.
What this means for similar claims
If you are bringing a claim against a company that is in financial difficulty, it is vital to check whether the company is still on the register. If it has been dissolved, you may need to apply to the court to restore the company before a tribunal can issue a valid judgment. Otherwise, even a successful claim can be rendered worthless. The same principle applies to any claim where the employer ceases to exist — the judgment must be against a live legal entity to be enforceable.
Similar cases
Redundancy without consultation: protective award of 90 days' pay
A former employee won a protective award of 90 days' pay after his employer made him redundant without any consultation. The company was in administration and did not attend the hearing.
TUPE transfer during liquidation: protective award and unfair dismissal claims fail, but consultation breach succeeds
Former telemarketing employees lose protective award and unfair dismissal claims after a TUPE transfer from a company in creditors' voluntary liquidation, but win compensation for failure to consult.
90-day protective award for failure to consult before mass redundancy
A tribunal awarded 90 days' pay to 15 employees dismissed without any consultation when Clements Limited went into administration.
221 workers win maximum protective award after redundancy without any consultation
A tribunal has awarded 221 former employees of SP Group Ltd a protective award of 90 days' pay after the company made them redundant without any collective consultation when it went into administration.