Case 1811264/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Morris Simpson v MS Acumen Limited (In Creditors’ Voluntary Liquidation) and 1 other — 2025
- Case reference
- 1811264/2024
- Decision date
- 14 November 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ayre Representation
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Morris Simpson
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMorris Simpson brought claims against MS Acumen Limited (in creditors’ voluntary liquidation) and the Secretary of State for Business and Trade. At the hearing on 14 November 2025, the Secretary of State was added as a respondent by consent. The first respondent did not attend and was not represented; the claimant appeared in person, and the second respondent was represented by a lay representative.
The tribunal held that the claims for holiday pay and arrears of pay were out of time and that it did not have jurisdiction to hear them. It also held that the claim for a redundancy payment failed because the claimant was not an employee of the first respondent.
No monetary award was made. The judgment records that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | The tribunal held the holiday pay claim was out of time and that it did not have jurisdiction to hear it. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal treated the arrears of pay claim as out of time and held that it did not have jurisdiction to hear it. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | The claim for a redundancy payment failed because the claimant was not found to be an employee of the first respondent. | 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.