Case 1306450/2020 · Employment Tribunal
M R Ennis, Solicitor For the v Respondent — 2021
- Case reference
- 1306450/2020
- Decision date
- 23 July 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hughes
Parties
1 namedClaimant
M R Ennis, Solicitor For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a remote preliminary hearing on 23 July 2021 before Employment Judge Hughes, the tribunal considered the respondent's jurisdiction challenge in case 1306450/2020. The written judgment records that Mr A Spruce was an applicant for employment rather than a worker or employee.
On that basis, the tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to hear the claim and dismissed it. The written record does not record any monetary remedy, and it notes that oral reasons were given at the hearing.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Used for the Blacklisting Regulations category listed in the case metadata; dismissed because the tribunal held the claimant was an applicant for employment, not a worker or employee, so it had no jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Dismissed because the tribunal held the claimant was an applicant for employment, not a worker or employee, so it had no jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the tribunal held the claimant was an applicant for employment, not a worker or employee, so it had no jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.