Case 1600103/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Sutcliffe v Energist Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 1600103/2021
- Decision date
- 13 April 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Russell Representation
- Venue
- Remotely
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Sutcliffe
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe written judgment records that the Tribunal had territorial jurisdiction to decide Mr S Sutcliffe's claim against Energist Limited. The hearing was held remotely by video from Cardiff on 7 April 2022 before Employment Judge Russell, with Mr Sutcliffe appearing in person and Mr G Pollitt appearing for the Respondent.
The document does not set out any substantive findings on liability, does not identify the underlying claims in the extracted text, and records no remedy. It states that reasons for the judgment were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days.
Accordingly, the only recorded determination in the written judgment is the Tribunal's jurisdictional ruling. No award or breakdown of compensation is given in the document supplied.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The written judgment records only that the Tribunal had territorial jurisdiction to decide the Claimant's claim. It does not record a substantive liability finding, a remedy, or the underlying claim type in the extracted text. | Other | — | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.